$B 294 305 


PANU 


Ss kn apes το ογωσοσασς S702 Ae St pe καὶ 2 - : ; 
pie an area te arer On SPte oP sw Sree Ws OTST OOF «φάφι φασι Se ἀσὶ 

Sees cree St arar er ararensa cress St σα SUSs Seer yen bee Saha τ 

Seeger tee gst τ τ 


ois = 
eESt tate tere 
ty ab ate us te eae τὰν 


ἜΤΟΣ τὸν τ τα er ew τῷ on $e 


ἀουσων τα τσιῳ νων τῳ ψαν τς 
ΠΣ 


cee ey Στ ee ewes Bree me» 


πα ἐφέτος es earners 
Ἔ 


ταῖσι, 
τοῦς oy 


eins theres) στο ατάιυχόπος τι τα, bite 
conse 
Lanse Se Sr αρου 


Σὰ ἔτι ly 
SSeS ο τονε ἀ νος ΠΣΣΣ ΣΙ ΣΙ ΕΣ ἼΣ ; BRUTE ee 
Sphrorererereres it eetestiatefreted Ξ 


= poate 


EXCHANGE 


AG 
AS errs 
hy? <7 


LEI TEE I aE 
i ὕ Ὁ Σ: 
τ" 


PAULINE ΠΙΣΤΙΣ-ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΙΣ 


ACCORDING to Hes. XI, 1 


AN HISTORICO-EXEGETICAL 
INVESTIGATION 


DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SACRED SCIENCES 
AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PAR- 
TIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
FOR THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY 


BY THE 


ReverenD MICHAEL AMBROSE MATHIS, 5. T.L. 


Or THE CONGREGATION OF HoLy Cis 


CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 
1920 


Lmprimt permittitur : 
A. Morrissgy, C.S.C., Sup. Prov. 


Nitpil obstat: 


P. J. Waters, Ph.D., Censor Librorum. 


Rnrprimatur : 


% W. Carp. O’Conneti, Archiepiscopus Bostoniensis. 


iW 


Cy 


MY PROFESSOR AND FRIEND 


THE REV. HEINRICH SCHUMACHER, S.T.D. 
THIS WORK 
15. GRATEFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY 


DEDICATED 


ims 


Δ 71 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/paulinepistisupo00revmrich 


INTRODUCTION 


Πίστις is undoubtedly one of the most important theologi- 
cal terms in the New Testament. Lightfoot goes so far as 
to say that “it assumes in the teaching of Our Lord, en- 
forced and explained by St. Paul, the foremost place in the 
phraseology of Christian doctrine.” Ὁ From the dawn of the 
Christian era to our own times, many volumes have been 
written about πίστις from various points of view. Among 
recent scientific works, that of Schlatter, Der Glaube Im 
Neuen Testament, might almost be called the classic on Πισ- 
τις In the New Testament. And in this work the author has, 
of course, treated the Pauline πίστις within the limits of his 
more general theme. A monograph, however, dealing spe- 
cifically and scientifically with the Pauline πίστις, does not 
yet exist; hence, it is something to be desired. One needs 
but to read a few current definitions of this term, especially 
in non-Catholic writers, to agree with Lechler, “Was aber 
positiv der paulinische Begriff des Glaubens sei, dariiber ist 
immer noch Streit.” 3 

This misunderstanding and the status of the most recent 
opinion about the Pauline πίστις is frankly set forth by 
Johannes Weiss in these words: ‘Da ist vor allem und ganz 
besonders das Wort ‘Glaube,’ das bis heute zu so entsetz- 
lichen Missverstaéndnissen Anlass gibt, sei es dass man es im 
Gegensatz zu einem begriindeten ‘ Wissen’ als halbes, un- 
sicheres, gemutmasstes Wissen oder Meinen versteht, oder 


_ 1§t. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 157. 
2 Das Apostol. und das Nachapostol. Zeitalter (3 Aufl., 1885), 5. 368, 
quoted from Bartmann’s article in BS (1897), I, 41. 


Υ 


vi INTRODUCTION 


als ein trages sich Verlassen oder ein unwiirdiges sich Ge- 
fangengeben in eine fremde unverstandene Lehre.”! The 
same author also points out the method by which this con- 
fusion can be cleared up, viz., by an historico-literary in- 
vestigation of Heb. xi, 1: “Das Wort, dessen Geschichte 
man kennen muss, um es zu verstehen, ist von Paulus nicht : 
geschaffen, es lag ihm vor als ein fertig abgestempelter Be- 
griff ”;2 and Heb. xi, 1 is suggested for this investigation, 
because for such a work ‘‘die beiden Umschreibungen, die 
der Hebraer-Brief in seiner beriihmten Definition des Glau- 
bens wahlt, sind héchst bezeichnend.”® In a word, this 
verse is to be selected for the historico-literary investiga- 
tion of the Pauline πίστις, because it has a literary history, 
and because, in the words of St. Augustine, “It is the 
standard definition of Faith.” 4 

What gives an added exegetical interest to the problem, is 
the fact that there is as much confusion about the meaning 
of Heb. xi, 1 as there is about the Pauline πίστις. And the 

source of this confusion is not only the uncertainty about 
the meaning of ὑποστασις, the pivotal term of the whole 
verse, but also the dogmatic tendency always to define 
the Pauline πίστις as “conviction,” or * confidence,” or 
“ foundation,” —no matter in what Pauline text or context 
the term happens to occur. Thus Delitzsch insists that here 
υποστασις, and hence πίστις means “ Zuversicht”;® J. Weiss 
hails it as a striking example of “unbeugsamer Uberzeu- 
gung”’;® and Westcott is satisfied that ‘‘the general scope 
of the statement is to show that the future and the unseen 
can be made real by Faith.” 7 A whole litany of such vari- 
ant and yet emphatic views about the meaning of ὑποστασις 
in Heb. xi, 1 might be noted. But these are sufficient to 


1 Das Urchristentum, I, 322. 5 Commt. on the Epist. to the Hebr., 
2 Ibid. II, 210. 
3 Ibid. 6 Op. cit., I, 322. 


4 Cf. Enchiridion, c. 8. 7 The Epistle to the Hebrews, 351. 


INTRODUCTION vii 


illustrate the existing confusion and contention regarding 
the sense of the Pauline πίστις of this verse. It is with 
the hope of aiding in clarifying this important theological 
term that I take up this historico-literary investigation of 
Heb. xi, 1: ἔστιν δε πίστις ἐλπιζομενων ὑποστασις, πραγματων 
ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων. 

Without anticipating the investigation itself, we may pref- 
ace it by saying what at a glance is evident to every one, 
viz., that the Pauline πίστις is here defined in two phrases: 
(a) ελπιζομενων vrroctacis, and (δ) πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov 
βλεπομενων. ‘The second phrase has been so generally in- 
terpreted as the “incontestable proof,” or “the test,” or 
“the conviction” of “things unseen,” that there remains 
no longer any serious doubt about its meaning. Accord- 
ingly, we shall confine our investigation to the first element 
of the verse, or more precisely, to vroctacis, the term out 
of which most of the confusion regarding the passage has 
arisen. / | 

After establishing the original text, we shall seek the light 
of Greek literary history for the interpretation of its decisive 
term, ὑπόστασις. ‘To that end, we shall not only review all 
the extant interpretations of the verse, among which those 
of the early Greek Fathers (the descendants of those very 
Greeks whose ears once rang with the Pauline πίστις) must 
be of great importance, but we shall also study the meaning 
of υποστασις in the ancient classic and κοίνη literatures, 
where the term was prepared by its natural historical de- 
velopment for the Pauline author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. It is only by this method that we can force this 
ancient Greek past, the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1, to 
surrender its understanding of πιστίς ---υποστασις. And 
we have every reason to hope that by this light we shall 
dispel the darkness that now envelops this important verse; 
for, we believe with the ever-growing conviction of modern 
scholars that there is “contact” between the language of 


viil INTRODUCTION 


the Greek Bible and the speech of the contemporary Hel- 
lenic world. 

It is a most agreeable duty to express here sincere grati- 
tude to the Rev. Dr. Heinrich Schumacher, my profes- 
sor of New Testament Exegesis, under whose helpful and 
stimulating direction this monograph has been written. I | 
am also happy to acknowledge my indebtedness to other 
professors at the Catholic University of America, and nota- 
bly to Drs. Céln, Butin, and Vaschalde, my masters in Old 
Testament Exegesis and Semitic Languages, to Dr. Shana- 
han, my preceptor in Dogma, to Dr. Aiken and the profes- 
sors of Sacred Theology who have read the first draft of this 
work. Expressions of my sincere gratitude are also due 
the Very Rev. James Burns, C.S.C., Ph.D., and the Rev. 
Maurice Norckauer, C.S.C., for helpful suggestions in the 
presentation of the matter. 


MicHAEL MArTuis, C.S.C. 
Hoty Cross CoLiuEGE, 
Brooxkianp, D. C. 
January, 1920. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 
INTRODUCTION . ν᾽ Ν : ; : * 5 7 4 ᾿ Vv 


PART I. HISTORICAL 


CuHarpTER I. Tue Text. ᾿ ( 4 ὶ ὺ : Ξ ε 3 


CHAPTER I]. INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 


1. Inthe Greek Fathers . PPAR TaN ΡΤ Ne OS Le 
2. In the Latin Fathers . ὶ > ‘ ‘ . . 48 
3. In the Exegesis of the Middle ἜΣ ‘ ° . : . 60 
4, In Modern Exegesis .. eee ewe δὲς ei BS 


PART II. EXEGETICAL 


CHAPTER I. HustTorico-LirERARY INVESTIGATION OF TroocrTacts 


1. In the Hellenic World . b h : ‘ ; : 6 ae 
2. In Biblical Literature . , : 4 ‘ ‘ i - 127 
CuapTer II. APPLICATION OF THE Resutts TO Hes. x1,1 . 141 
CONCLUSION. ; F ‘ : P : : : a) SOL 
ABBREVIATIONS . . ‘ . ο . ὁ . . - 152 


BIBLIOGRAPHY . ‘ : Η ‘ ᾿ ᾿ R é « 163 


PART I — HISTORICAL 


CHAPTER I 


THE TEXT 


At the very outset of this exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, it will 
be well to establish critically the original text. Because the 
original text will be ‘‘terra firma” for the whole investiga- 
tion, and “lux in tenebris” for the history of the various 
interpretations of our verse. ‘The commonly accepted criti- 
cal evidence ! is threefold : Greek uncial MSS., versions prior 
to the eighth century, and Patristic quotations. 


I. The critical evidence favoring the Textus Receptus: Eore 
de πίστις ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις, πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov βλε- 
πομενων : 


1. Greek MSS.: All Greek MSS. of critical value, except 
Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Claromontanus (D?*™).? 
The variance of the latter is so slight (the accusative case, 
υποστασιν, for the nominative), that it may be eliminated. 


2. Versions: 


A. For the Latin versions we note those given by Tischen- 
dorf :* (a) Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, 
argumentum non apparentium: The Latin translation‘ of 
Augiensis Cantabrigiensis (F), Vulgate (vg), Demidovia- 
nus (demid). 

(6) Sperandorum substantia, rerum argumentum non ap- 
parentum®: Amiatinus (am) Fuldensis (fu). 


1 Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the N. T., 1, 42. 
2 Tischendorf, Novum Test. Graece, etc., II, 820. 

8 Ibid. 

4 Hebrews in Cod. Augiensis is preserved only in Latin. 

5 ἐς Apparentum ᾽" is obviously a careless spelling for ‘‘ apparentium.’’ 


3 


4 9  .\° ΠΕ PAULINE PISTIS 


‘B. ‘Boliairic:: Faith is ἃ firmness (oytaxpo)! of things 
hoped for and a proof of things not seen. 

C. Arabic: Invenitur autem fides substantia eorum quae 
expectantur, evidentia rerum quae non cernuntur.? 

D. Armenian: Quid est fides nisi certitudo rerum spera- 
tarum et argumentum rerum non apparentium.? 


3. Patristic Quotations: 


A. Greek Fathers: Clement of Alexandria,* Origen (ex- 
tant in the Latin translation of Rufinus),° Cyril of Jerusalem,® 
Gregory of Nyssa,’ John Chrysostom,’ Theodore of Mopsu- 
estia,? Cyril of Alexandria,!° Theodoret,4 and John Damas- 
cene.# 

B. Latin Fathers: Ambrose, and Jerome * (“ Non” of 
TR is changed to ‘“‘necdum”’). 


4. Papyrus P15 (saec. IV) in the British Museum with 
fragments of the Epistle to the Hebrews reads: ελπεζομενων 
πραγμάτων ὑὕποστασίς. 


Il. Critical evidence for OTHER TEXTS: 


A. ἔστι δε πιστις ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις, πραγματων ἐλεγ- 
χοὸς ov Βουλομενων : only one Greek MS. Codex Alexandri- 
nus (A). 

B. Est autem fides ¢spirantiwm substantia rerum, accusa- 
tor non videnttum: Latin of the Graeco-Latin codices Claro- 
montanus (d) and Sangermanensis (e), the latter not being 
of independent value, but a mere copy of Codex Claromon- 
tanus. It should be noted that the Epistle to the Hebrews 

1 The Coptic Version of the N. T. etc., Ed. Horn, ΠῚ, 528. 


2 Brianus Waltonus, 5. S. Biblia Polyglotta, etc., V, 818. 
3 Translated by Dr. A. A. Vaschalde from the Armenian text of the Ameri- 


can Biblical Society. 4 Berlin Ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, II, 117. 
5 Migne, P. G., 14, 979 C. 10 Migne, P. G., 74, 989 C. 
6 Migne, P. G., 33, 506. ll Migne, P. 6., 82, 757 A. 
7 Migne, P. G., 45, 941 C. 12 Migne, P. G., 95, 980 B. 
8 Migne, P. G., 63, 151 B. 13 Migne, P. L., 16, 521 B. 


9 Migne, P. G., 66, 965 B. 14 Migne, P. L., 26, 448 C. 


THE TEXT 5 


in Cod. Claromontanus was not originally contained in that 
Codex, but was added later. 

C. Est autem fides sperantium substantia, convictio rerum 
quae non videntur: Augustine! in several passages. 

D. Est autem fides certitudo (convictio = cognitio) de iis 
rebus quae sunt in spe, ac 81 iam existerent actu: et revelatio 


ie OL 


eorum quae non videntur : sone \S Lie para — i 


00 > v Az 


al jo .Lpdamo aN wioovod rl pate ull 
mijndso t&»2 — Peshitto. 


This rather brief and condensed account of the critical 
evidence is certainly of the highest interest. For the variants 
show that Heb. xi, 1 was always surrounded by a mysterious 
atmosphere, inasmuch as they are not only different read- 
ings for the same idea, but also represent an entirely different 
exegesis and understanding of the text from that which is 
suggested by the original. 

Let us now consider the variants in detail. 

1. The Peshitto certainly presents a highly surprising 
reading. If we leave out the clause, “ac si iam existerent 
actu,” we have the text: Est autem fides convictio (cognitio) 
de iis quae sunt in spe, et revelatio eorum quae non videntur. 
This evidently corresponds to the form of the Greek TR. 


The translation of ἐλπιξομενων by lao qoadul} is no serious 
ee 


deviation from the original. But how was the passage, »!” 


SER ἢ Ἔ," 


«]apsame «ον. <ionyon (“ac si iam existerent δούα ᾽) intro- 


duced into the text? It is unnecessary to say that this phrase 
never belonged to the original; and yet the idea is well known 
to us from the Greek Patristic exegesis, as the explanation 
of the mysterious word ὑποστασίς, as we shall see. The most 
natural solution seems to be this: the author of the Peshitto 


1 De Peccat., Meritis, et Remiss., Lib. Il, XX XI, 50; Corp. Scrip. Eccles. 
Latin., Vol. LX, Sancti A. Augustini Opera (Sect. VIII, Part I, p. 121, 8). 


6 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


knew well the meaning of the Greek word ὑποστασις in this 
context, but apparently was unable to express it adequately 
in Syriac. Therefore, he translated with the next best word 
—certitudo (cognitio), and supported this weak expres- 
sion by a paraphrase which would give the full meaning of 
vrootacis. Thus the Peshitto becomes not only valuable 
evidence for the originality of the TR, but also a precious 
and official interpreter in the early Syrian Church of ὑπο- 
στασις in the sense of a “ presentation of future reality.” 

2. St. Augustine’s usual text also varies with the TR: Est 
autem fides sperantium substantia, convictio rerum quae non 
videntur. At most this variant can only be the text of a 
LATIN VERSION of the time; and, of course, its value is 
derived from the Greek text of which it is a translation. 
As to this Greek text, there is no doubt that the second part 
of the verse — convictio rerum quae non videntur — trans- 
lates πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων ; and in the first part 
of the verse we find difficulty only with “sperantium.” Does 
“sperantium ” translate ελπεζοντων, or ελπεζομενων Ὁ In view 
of the fact that almost the whole threefold critical evidence 
favors ελπιζομενων as original, and since ελπεζομενων, as the 
Middle Voice, could be translated “sperantium,” we may 
conclude that the Latin translator of Augustine’s text ren- 
dered ελπιζομενων by “sperantium.” Of course, we agree 
with Delitzsch! that this was not the best translation of 
εἐλπιζομενων. It probably came into being with Augustine’s 
interpretation of ὑποστασις. It is certainly not testified to 
by the MSS., since only one Latin Version d (Claromontanus) 
has it. 

3. Theteat of the Cod. Claromontanus runs: Est autem fides 
ispirantium? substantia rerum, accusator non videntium. 
The Cod. Sangermanensis with the same reading is only a 
copy of d. Since the Greek parallel is identical with the 


1 Op. cit., II, 207. 
2 ‘¢Tspirantium ’’ is, no doubt, a corrupted spelling for ‘‘ sperantium.’’ 


THE TEXT 7 


TR, we have here no different reading at all. The Latin 
translation, however, causes difficulties. Evidently, the first 
part is identical with Augustine’s reading. The Greek par- 
allel has ελπεζομενων. “Ispirantium” may, therefore, be 
explained in the same way as Augustine’s “sperantium.” 
But what about the second difference in the text: “ Accu- 
sator non videntium ” for ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων ἡ “ Viden- 
tium”’ seems to be a harmonization with “ispirantium.” And 
“accusator”? —a term for juridical procedure — seems to 
betray this strange interpretation of the second part of the 
verse: πίστις is the accuser of those who do not see. This 
reading is, therefore, more interesting for the history of the 
interpretation than for the history of the text. Besides, let 
us note the words of Tischendorf on the general untrust- 
worthiness of Cod. Claromontanus: ‘“ Graeca praebent formas 
‘ Alexandr[in]as’ quas dicunt, Latina inprimis in Epistola 
ad Hebraeos errores multos.” } 

4. Alexandrinus (A) varies from TR by having the re- 
markable form βουλομενων for βλεπομενων. All other Greek 
MSS., all critical versions, and all Patristic quotations are 
against this reading. Besides, it is a curious reading, giving 
this unusual contrast of πίστις : πίστις is an assurance of 
things hoped for (e.g., heaven) and a forced conviction of 
things not desired (e.g., hell). Is this an intentional altera- 
tion of the original text, or only an error of the copyist? 
Indeed, if βουλομενων could not be explained as a transcrip- 
tional error, we should have a much more difficult problem 
in textual criticism before us. But we have good grounds 
for thinking that βουλομενων is a mistake in the transcription 
of Βλεπομενων, since in the uncial MSS. BAETTOMENQN 
might very easily be read BOYAOMENQN. For both words 
have the same number of characters, the same termination 
—OMENON, and the same initial letter B. The transposition 
and inversion of ΛΘ of BAETTOMENQN to OY of BOYAOME- 

1 Op. cit., III, 419. 


8 _ THE PAULINE PISTIS 


NQN would not be extraordinary at all, since it is an ordinary 
mistake in the MSS. Hence, itis at least possible that in the 
uncial MSS. BAETTOME NON was transcribed BOYAOME NON. 

The Patristic evidence, however, is decisive in this case. 
For, as Codex Alexandrinus was probably written at Alex- 
andria,! the Alexandrian Patristic writers in their quotations 
of Heb. xi, 1 are of supreme interest. Clement and Cyril 
of Alexandria, and Origen witness, by their quotations of our 
verse, to βλεπομενων. Clement’s testimony is weightiest 
and clearest, because his text antedates by two centuries the 
transcription recorded in Alexandrinus, and also because 
Clement has made it unmistakably clear that he read 
πραγματων ov βλεπομενων by giving for it in the context 
of his quotation the synonym advous πραγματος.2 Accord- 
ingly, by the combined evidence of all other Greek MSS., 
all critical versions, and the decisive Patristic quotations, 
and in view of the fact that βουλομενων can possibly be 
explained as an error in transcription, we must eliminate 
the text of A as the original text of Heb. xi, 1. 

Summarizing the investigation of the history of the text, 
we may say: In spite of some remarkable testimony in a 
few witnesses, which more or less betrays the difficulty trans- 
lators had with ὑπόστασις, we have in fact an overwhelming 
unanimity for the TR. In support of the TR we have the 
combined witness of practically all the critical evidence — 
the Greek MSS., all the critical versions, and strong Patristic 
quotations that go back to the first appearance of our verse 
in extant literature. Hence, we conclude that the text of 
Heb. xi, 1 in TR is the original text. For, in the words of 
Hammond, “the combined testimony of the earliest MSS. 
with the earliest versions, and quotations in the earliest 
writers, mark an undoubted reading.” ὃ 


1F. G. Kenyon, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 917. — Art. Text. 
2 Stromata, ΤΙ, 2.— Berlin Ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, II, 117. 
3 Op. cit., 106. 


THE TEXT 9 


There still remains one more textual problem to consider, 
viz., the punctuation within the text itself. The history 
of the text has developed two problems of punctuation: 
(a) Should a comma be placed after πίστις, and (6) should 
a comma be placed before or after πραγματων ? 

The critical evidence for punctuation is unsatisfactory for 
both questions, and in the second it is divided (in the ver- 
sions and Patristic quotations). For there is no, or only 
irregular, punctuation in the earliest uncial MSS. In such 
codices as record our verse, we have the following general 
confusion in the matter of punctuation: In Sinaiticus (8) 
words are not separated, except where a new idea requires 
a new line!; in Alexandrinus (A) “a very simple punctua- 
tion is introduced, consisting of a simple point at the end 
of a sentence followed by a break in the line”?; in Claro- 
montanus (ΠῚ and d) and Sangermanensis (E?*™ and e), 
we find the stichometric arrangement*; and Augiensis Can- 
tabrigiensis (F?™ and f) places a period after every word of 
the text. Hence, we conclude with Tischendorf ® that no 
sound argument can be taken from the punctuation in the 
earliest MSS.: “ Luce clarius est ne argumentum quidem ad 
interpunctionem rectam decernendam hauriri posse ex prio- 
rum nuditate (as in &),° neque magis ex posteriorum copia 
signorum ” (as in f).® 


A. Tue Comma AFTER ἸΠιστις. 

With Erasmus a comma was placed after πίστις. This 
comma put ὑπόστασις and edeyyos in apposition to πίστις. 
The construction would then yield the sense, “ Faith really 
exists, etc.,”” — a remarkable and useless insistence on the ob- 
vious. But this comma is disappearing in the light of mod- 
ern research. Olshausen undermined the principal ground 
upon which the comma’ was inserted after πίστις : * And 


1 Tischendorf, Op. cit., III, 111. 4 Tischendorf, Op. cit., III, 111. 
2 Hammond, Op. cit., 142. 5 Op. cit., III, 112. 
8 Tischendorf, Op. cit., III, 114 and 423. 6 My additions in parenthesis. 


10 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


when in support of this construction, it is affirmed that ἐστι 
as copula cannot stand at the beginning of the sentence, such 
passages are forgotten as Luke viii, 11: ἐστι de αὐτὴ ἡ παρα- 
Bory. In the preceding context of that passage it is said 
that the understanding of the parables is important, and 
then the transition is made to the explanation of the parables 
themselves. Just so here. In x, 38, it was said Faith is 
necessary; and in xi, 1, the question is answered, what is 
Faith.”! A. 'T. Robertson, in the light of the most recent 
research, says of this objection: “" ἔστιν is also the accent 
at the beginning of the sentence, Heb. xi, 1.32. And this 
emphasis ‘“‘on the eos denotes certainty of connection be- 
tween the subject and the predicate, the assured truth of 
the affirmation made.”? Accordingly, in the absence of all 
certain critical evidence, and with the fall of the principal 
reason for placing a comma after πίστις, we conclude that 
no comma should be placed here. 


B. THE COMMA BEFORE or AFTER πραγματων. 


From a mere glance at the text: ἔστι de πίστις ελπίιζομε- 
νων ὑποστασις πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων, it will be 
observed that this definition or description of πίστις is two- 
fold: ελπιζομενων vrocracis and edeyyos ov βλεπομενων. 
The difficulty arises with πραγμάτων. Does it belong to the 
first or to the second part of the verse? As we stated above, 
the punctuation in the earliest uncial MSS. is such as to pre- 
clude any sound argument being taken from them. Yet the 
inversion of the words ελπεζομενων vroctacis πραγμάτων 
into ἐλπιζομενων πραγματων ὑποστασις in the Papyrus P} in 
the British Museum favors the view that πραγμάτων belongs 
to the first part. 

We find more critical evidence on the point under discus- 
sion in the versions and the Patristic quotations. All the 

1 Bibl. Comm. on the N. T., VI, 540. 


2 A Grammar of the Greek N. T., in the Light of Historical Research, 234. 
3 Delitzsch, Op. cit., II, 204. 


THE TEXT 11 


Latin versions (except Amiatinus and Fuldensis), the Syriac, 
the Bohairic, and the Armenian place πραγματῶων in the first 
part of Heb. xi, 1, whereas the Arabic puts it in the second 
part of the verse. The Patristic writers are also divided in 
this matter. Those favoring πραγμάτων in the first part of 
the verse are: Origen,! Chrysostom,? Augustine,? and Jer- 
ome‘; and those favoring the other view are: Clement of 
Alexandria,®> Ambrose,* Theodoret,’ and others. Thus, the 
critical evidence is divided so sharply as to make it almost 
impossible to decide the matter. 

Since the Patristic period the place of this comma (either 
before or after πραγματων) has been discussed in every com- 
plete exegesis of Heb. xi,1; and the opinion that πραγματων 
belongs to the second part of the verse has been constantly 
gaining ground. So much so that in the best recent texts 
Tischendorf does not even mention the variant for the 
comma after πραγματων, and Westcott and Hort call it 
a less probable punctuation. We agree with this modern 
opinion, because, in the words of Delitzsch, “πράγμα some- 
times denotes an historical fact, sometimes a supersensuous 
reality: It is in the latter sense that πραγματων is used 
here; and so evidently belongs more properly to the ov βλεπ- 
ομενων, in order to distinguish the unseen realities which 
are the objects of Faith from the shadowy dreams which are 
the creations of human fancy.” ὃ 

Having established the original text of Heb. xi, 1 to be 
ἔστι δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις, TpayuaTwv ἔλεγχος ou 
βλεπομενων, we shall take up in the next chapter the HIS- 
TORY OF THE EXEGESIS of our verse,— what men have 
thought of Heb. xi, 1 from its first appearance in extant 
literature to the interpretations of our own day. 


1 Migne, P. G., 14, 979 Ὁ. 5 Op. cit., Il, 117. 
2 Migne, P. G., 63, 151 B. 6 Migne, P. L., 16, 521 B. 
3 Op. cit., 121, 8. 7 Berlin Ed. Theodoret, I, 91. 


4 Migne, P. L., 26, 448 Ὁ. 8 Op. cit., ΤΙ, 205. 


CHAPTER II 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 


1. IN THE GREEK FATHERS 


Certainly the most important period in the exegetical 
history of Heb. xi, 1 is the Greek Patristic. For the Greek 
interpretation is not only the first exegesis of our verse, but 
it is also the interpretation of writers whose mother tongue 
was the xown διαλεκτος of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Hence, besides its importance for the history of the interpre- 
tation, the Greek Patristic understanding of ὑποστασις, the 
pivotal term of the verse, will be constantly noted because it 
has an historico-literary value of the greatest moment. 

The first time we meet ὑποστασις in Patristic literature is 
in the EPISTLE TO DIoGNETUS, II, 1, where it is apparently 
used synonymously with edos. The author invites Diog- 
netus to purify his mind from all prejudices and see of what 
υποστασις or εἰδος the Pagan gods have been fashioned: cde 
μη μονον τοῖς οφθαλμοις, αλλα Kat TH φρονήσει, τινος υποστα- 
TEWS ἡ τινος εἰδους τυγχανουσιν OVS ερείτε καὶ νομίζετε θεους.1 
Although ὑποστασις seems to be synonymous with εἰδος, it 
cannot be determined with certainty what it really means in 
this passage. If νυποστασις is used synonymously with ecdos, 
then it means either form or an element of a composition, 
which were the meanings of evdos at the time.? If it is not 
used synonymously with edos, then it is difficult to describe 
it more accurately than as something connected with essence. 

1 Migne, P. G., 2, 1169 A. 

2 Cf. R. Hirzel, Ovo.a, Philologus, Band 72 (1913), 48, where he says that 
ecdos is not confined to the limits of Platonic metaphysics, ‘‘ mag man darun- 


ter die das Wesen eines Dinges scharf umschreibende Form oder das zur 
Komposition eines Ganzen dienende Element verstehen.”’ 


12 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 13 


If we can trust Goodspeed’s Index Apologeticus,! υποστασις 
is not in the vocabulary of Justin, but we are indebted to 
his disciple Tatran for an extensive use of the word. 
Trrootacis occurs seven times in his Προς EAAnvas. Inc. 5, 
God is called the Lord of all things, because He is the 
original ὑπόστασις of all things: O yap Δεσπότης των odor, 
auTos uTrapX@v τοῦ TAaAVTOS ἢ ὑὕυποστασίς, KATA μὲν τὴν 
μηδέπω γεγενημενὴν ποίησιν povos nv.2 Certainly Tatian did 
not mean to say here that God is the original essence from 
which everything flows (as the pantheists would say), be- 
cause he explains the ὑποστασις by: He existed originally 
alone, when no creation had yet taken place. Not only 
because He existed before (temporally) the creation, but 
also in contrast to the creation (cata), as author of the cre- 
ation, He is called υποστασις: The REALLY EXISTING BEING 
in contrast to the NON-EXISTING BEING. 

One of the most interesting usages of ὑπόστασις in the 
whole Patristic literature is found in c. 7, 2, of the same 
work. The author is here establishing the Christian Belief 
in the resurrection of the body at the last day, which doc- 
trine the Greeks ridiculed. But it is not so ridiculous, 
wrote Tatian. For just as one does not exist before he is 
born (and of course “ I did not know who I was, though I ex- 
isted in the υποστασις of fleshly matter”), and when actually 
born he is convinced that he really exists; so in the same 
way once having been born and by death existing and seen 
no longer he shall again exist. . . . For should his body be 
burned, or dispersed into rivers and seas, or even torn into 
pieces by wild beasts, yet he is laid up in the storehouse of 
a mighty Lord who, when He pleases, will restore to its 
pristine condition the ὑποστασις which is visible to Him 
alone: Ὥσπερ yap οὐκ wy πριν ἡ γενεσθαι τις ἡμὴν οὐκ 
εγινωσκον, μονον δεεν ὑποστασεῖ της σαρκίκης VANS 


1 Οἵ, p. 280. 2 Migne, P. G., 6, 818 C. 


14 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


υπηρχον, γεγονὼς Se o μὴ παλαι δια τῆς yeverews TO ELvaL 
πεπίστευκα * τὸν αὑτον τρόπον ὁ γενομενος καὶ δια θανατου 
μηκετ᾽ wv αὐθις te μηκεθ᾽ ορωμενος ecopal παλὶν worep μὴ 
παλαι yeyovws ata γεννηθεις. . .. Geos δε ο βασιλευων, ote 
βουλεται, τὴν ορωτην αὑτω μονω ὑυποστασιν ἀποκαταστήσει 
προς τον ἀαρχαιον.} 

We have here three parallel expressions: Tatian compares 
the BIRTH of man with the RESURRECTION of the body; also 
the manner of EXISTENCE IN THE vroctacis OF FLESHLY 
MATTER before birth with the manner of EXISTENCE OF A 
CORPSE before the resurrection; the third and apologetic 
comparison makes use of the other two, — just as BIRTH can 
be predicated as a future reality of the manner of EXISTENCE 
IN THE υὑποστασις OF FLESHLY MATTER, so the RESURREC- 
TION can be predicated as a future reality of the manner of 
EXISTENCE PROPER TO A CORPSE (which is also called an 
vroctacis). What is the meaning of ὑποστασις in these 
comparisons ? 

We must first of all establish the meaning of the various 
expressions used : ' 

1. “Before my existence” (yeveo@ar) from the context 
means ‘* before my visible existence on earth.” 

2. “I did not know (imperf. ἐγίνωσκον) who I was,” — 
the imperfect ey:vwoxov demands the sense, “ I was in a con- 
dition where I did not know who I was.” 

8. ‘* But I was already existing (virnpyov) in the ὑποστα- 
σις of fleshly matter.” Ὑπηρχον means real existence; and 
the only such existence before birth in fleshly matter is ex- 
istence in the maternal womb. 

4. “But after having come into existence by birth I 
believed in the reality of my existence.” 

With this fact Tatian compares the resurrection thus: 

1. “After coming into existence, and by death existing 
and. seen no longer,” 

1 Migne, P. G., 6, 817 C-820 A. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 15 


2. “I shall be again,” 

8. “like the former, not existing and afterward receiving 
existence.” 

4. Reason: For God the King, when He wishes, will 
restore the virooraciw of the dead body which is visible to 
Him alone unto its former state. 

By “τις nunv” (“Who I was”) is expressed what Tatian 
understood by the term “before my existence,” namely, the 
time when he was in the womb of his mother. Thus, (1) 
the existing being in the womb of the mother is the ὑποστα- 
σις for the existence on earth, (2) as the body existing in 
death is the vmooraoiws for the risen body. Hence, the 
resurrection is not so ridiculous as the Pagans thought. 
For just so surely as he who exists in the womb of his 
mother will have real life on earth, so he who exists some- 
how in death will rise again. The example of coming into 
existence by birth is the easier, and is used for the illustra- 
tion of the more difficult idea of resurrection. 

For the interpretation of the expression “existing in the 
υὑποστασις of fleshly matter” (existence in the maternal 
womb) in these comparisons, it seems quite certain that the 
author does not wish to say that such an existence is merely 
temporally before birth, or similar to the existence of a 
corpse (for surely there is little similarity), but rather that 
it is a GUARANTEE OF FUTURE EXISTENCE, A CERTAINTY OF 
FUTURE REALITY, or better still, the ANTICIPATION OF A 
FUTURE AND MORE COMPLETE REALITY. For the EXIST- 
ENCE in the womb of the mother is REAL though incom- 
plete, as is evident from the expression qualifying EXISTENCE 
in the womb, “I did not know WHO I WAS” (Tis nunv). 
In a word, something was lacking to this manner of 
existence. All this is expressed in ὑποστασις : It is a GUAR- 
ANTEE and a CERTAINTY OF A FUTURE REALITY, a REALITY 
WHICH IS POSSESSED NOW TO A LIMITED EXTENT BUT 
WHICH WILL BE POSSESSED MORE COMPLETELY IN THE 


16 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


FUTURE, —IT IS A REAL ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE 
REALITY. 

ATHANAGORAS also speaks of the ὑποστασις as a quality of 
possession, saying that the angels to whom was intrusted the 
υποστασις of power and the government of the world abused 
them, o: de ενυβρισαν Kat Tn της ουσιας UTOTTAaCEL καὶ TH 
apyn.1 What is the meaning of ὑποστασις in this citation ? 

There is no doubt that ovova here means possession or 
power. Happily Athanagoras then gives an example of 
such angels as have abused the ὑποστασις της οὐσίας and the 
ἀρχή; namely, those angels who in Gen. vi, 1-4 took wives 
of the daughters of man and bore giants. These abused the 
υποστασις of their possession or power. The ὑπόστασις της 
ovotas or the ὑποστασις of their power is identified with 
apyn (government), except that apyyn is a specification, 7.e., 
to their power belongs the government. Since we have here 
a contrast between the authority which gives the power and 
the medium which uses, or better, abuses, the power, the 
υποστασις must express the connection between the power 
of the authority and that of the medium, the condttio sine 
qua non under which the medium can use the οὐσία, 7.e., the 
TITLE-DEED, the AUTHORIZATION to the power and govern- 
ment, which can be abused. Accordingly, ὑποστασις means 
TITLE-DEED, Or GUARANTEED RIGHT. 

It will be interesting to note even now the various mean- 
ings of the term ὑπόστασις thus far met with: 

1. In the Letter to Diognetus ὑποστασις probably means 
ESSENCE or SOMETHING CONNECTED WITH ESSENCE. 

2. In Tatian ὑποστασις is used as the emphasis of REALITY 
in contrast to NON-REALITY, as a GUARANTEE, CERTAINTY, 
and ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE REALITY. 

3. In Athanagoras υὑποστασις signifies GUARANTEE or 
TITLE-DEED. 


1 Supplicat. pro Christ., XXIV, 4, --- Migne, P.G., 6, 948 B. 
2 Cf. Hirzel, Op. cit., Band 72 (1913), 43 sq. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 17 


Is there any connection between the three meanings? 
Certainly. For the author of the Letter to Diognetus, ὑπο- 
στασις means simply reality ; for Tatian, it is an anticipated 
possession of a future reality ; and for Athanagoras, a guar- 
antee of a present reality. ‘The common element is reality. 

We now pass on to IRENAEUS in a new field of literature, 
the Gnostic, that interesting literature, through which, as 
Bigg! says, “these scientific terms were introduced into 
theology. Ovota, ὑπόστασις, ὑποκείμενον, ομοούυσιος, all occur 
in Irenaeus,” as in the philosophy of the time, where ὑπο- 
στασις and ovova “mean precisely the same thing.”? Ire- 
naeus uses them synonymously in Contr. Haer. I, 15. 
In this passage Irenaeus protests against the ravings of the 
Gnostic Marcus who, though admitting God to be incorpo- 
real, yet conceives the generation of God out of a multi- 
tude of letters of the alphabet. Our author thus states the 
dilemma: Καὶ ov acwparov καὶ avovatov ovomalets, THY TOUTOU 
ουσιαν Kal THY ὑποστασιν EX πολλων γραμματων, ετερων 
εξ ετερων γεννωμενων, κατασκευαζεις.ὃ Here ὑπόστασις and 
ovota are clearly used synonymously. We have seen that 
the preceding authors employ ὑποστασις in the sense of 
GUARANTEE OF REALITY, as the ANTICIPATED REALITY. 
But Irenaeus, in identifying ὑποστασις with ovora, the EXIST- 
ING REALITY, clearly marks a step in the development of 
the term, which becomes more evident by a note of the same 
author, especially interesting and important for the exegesis 
of Heb. xi, 1, Contr. Haer. IV, 21. Irenaeus here gives 
a definition of πιστις, which though not an explicit exegesis 
of Heb. xi, 1, yet is strikingly similar to the Syriac teat of 
our verse, and even foreshadows the common Patristic exege- 
sis of Heb. xi, 1. Speaking of Abraham as the prophet and 
example of πίστις, Irenaeus makes the interesting observa- 


1 Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 164, f. n. 1. 
2 Op. cit., 164. 
8 Migne, P. G., 7, 625 B. 


18 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


tion that Abraham believed in things future (which are also 
“things hoped for”), as if they were already accomplished: 
Illo quidem credente futuris quast tam factis propter promis- 
sionem Dei.! Here we have πίστις as the REPRESENTATION 
OF A FUTURE REALITY, as if it were already an accomplished 
fact: Futuris quasi iam factis. This bears a striking resem- 
blance to the Syriac rendering of edmifopevwv υποστασις of 
Heb. xi, 1: Est autem fides persuasio super iis, quae sunt 
in spe, ac si essent ipsis (intellige credentibus) in actu sive 
effectu.2. Then our author goes on to give what has a broad 
parallelism with the second part of Heb. xi, 1, ἔλεγχος ov 
βλεπομενων, when he says, “nobis quoque similiter per fidem 
speculantibus eam quae est in regno haereditatem.”® This 
is the first, though vague, indication of Heb. xi, 1, and means 
plainly per fidem videmus, quae non iam videtur, 7.e., ‘ hae- 
reditatem in regno,” or: βλέπομεν δια πίστεως ov βλεπομενα. 
The anticipated possession of a future reality (Tatian) is here 
a vivid representation of a future and complete reality (‘as 
if they were already accomplished ἢ). 

Up to this point we have been considering the common 
Patristic usage of the term ὑποστασις prior to Clement of 
Alexandria, because until his time our text itself is not 
found. Yet this earliest Christian usage is important, since 
it represents the closest link to the literary milieu of Heb. 
xi, 1 in its principal difficulty, namely, the meaning of the 
term uvroctacis. As the result of this investigation we may 
note the chief usages of the term found: vzrocraois has been 
used in the sense of ESSENCE, SOMETHING CONNECTED WITH 
ESSENCE, REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, GUAR- 
ANTEE, CERTAINTY, OR ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE REAL- 
ITY, ἃ REALITY NOT YET COMPLETE, and a REPRESENTATION 
OF A FUTURE AND COMPLETE REALITY. 


1 Migne, P. G., 7, 1044 A. 
2 Estius, Comm., in Cap. XI,—Epist. ad Hebraeos, vers. 1, 275; cf. 
also p. 5 of this Dissertation. 3 Migne, P. G., 7, 1044 A. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 19 


In CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA we find the first statement 
of our text, which he advances as scriptural confirmation, 
and, what is more important still, as an equation of his defi- 
nition of πίστις. In passing, we may note that much of the 
Stromata is devoted to πίστις. In fact, Clement is the first 
to give us a well-rounded treatment of the doctrine of Faith. 
But what is of the highest interest to the student of the 
development of religion (especially from the linguistic point 
of view) is the fact that in Clement the Christian πίστις is 
viewed in the light of the classical, which has profoundly 
affected the terminology of πίστις as an intellectual assent 
(συγκαταθεσις).1 In Stromata, II, 2, Clement argues that 
through mors alone can we come to the knowledge of God. 
Then he defines πίστις in the following terms: προληψὶς exov- 
σίος εστι, θεοσεβειας συγκαταθεσις, ἐλπιζομενων vTrogTacis, 
πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων, Kata τον θειον Αποστο- 
λον.2 Then follows in the next few chapters a further elu- 
cidation of συγκαταθεσις, θεοσεβεια, εκουσιος, and προληψιὶς 
in the light of classical Greek antiquity. That Clement’s 
definition of πίστις is equated by Heb. xi, 1 is unmistak- 
able. What is the meaning of the individual terms of 
this equation ? 

1. Συγκαταθεσις: The sense of συγκαταθεσις is clear 
from the immediate context. Clement, after quoting the 
Apostle, continues: Other philosophers have defined πίστις 
as an ASSENT to an unseen object: Αλλοι δ᾽ advous πραγμα- 
Tos evvontikny συγκαταθεσιν ἐπεδωκαν εἰναι την miotiv.2 And 
he adds the important words: Ὥσπερ ἀμέλει την αποδειξιν 
ayvooupevou πραγματος φανεραν συγκαταθεσιν : 6 As certainly 


1 Origen (Contr. Cel., III, 88, 89), Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat., V, X), 
John Damascene (Eapos. of the Orthodox Faith, IV, XI), and others have 
defined πιστις aS ἃ συγκαταθεσις, and Theodoret (Curatio Graec., I) repeats 
Clement of Alexandria almost verbatim in his dissertation Περι Πιστεως. 

2 Berl. Ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, I, 117. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Migne, P. G., 8, 940 A. 


20 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


the proof of an unknown thing is an evident assent. In the 
first instance πίστις was called an ASSENT (συγκαταθεσις). 
Here PROOF (αποδειξις.) is called ASSENT (συγκαταθεσις). 
Thus we have the identification of πίστις with αποδειξις. 
Αποδειξις (απο-δεικνυμι = present) originally means PRESEN- 
TATION of a reality, and includes the meaning that some- 
thing which was not present (materially or mentally) is 
MADE PRESENT. Thus αποδειξις is a proof in so far as it 
PRESENTS A REALITY. If we consider in this light the 
identification πίστις = συγκαταθεσις = αποδειξις, then πίστις 
is to be understood as the POWER WHICH MAKES A NON- 
PRESENT REALITY TO BE A PRESENT REALITY. This 
REPRESENTATION is produced by πίστις, as Clement ex- 
pressly states: προαποδεικνυντος τινος avTw δια της πίστεως 
την αποδειξιν.1 

The manner in which πίστις thus makes things to be 
PRESENT is plastically set forth in Stromata, 11,4. Clem- 
ent here distinguishes between the amioro: and the πίστοι. 
The amorot, clinging to visible things, assert that those 
things alone exist which can be touched and handled, defin- 
ing σῶμα and οὐσία to be the same thing. Not so with the 
moro, those who love πίστις, “Lo, I make new things which 
eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath the heart of 
man conceived” (Is. lxiv, 4; 1 Cor. ii, 9). It is these 
things which the Christian sees through πίστις. ILvotis 
creates in man a real means of perception: Kaw οφθαλμω, 
καινη AKON, καινὴ καρδια, Oca OpaTa καὶ ακούστα, KaTAaAnTTA 
δια τὴς πιστεῶς καὶ συνέσεως, “πνευματικῶς λεγόντων, ακουον- 
των, ππραττοντων των Tov Κυριου μαθητων.2 Here we have as 
an illustration a wonderful contrast between both ἃ MATE- 
RIAL REALITY and a SPIRITUAL REALITY, and the means 
of perceiving the two; what we see with our material eyes, 
hear with our material ears, love with our material heart, is 
MATERIAL REALITY; besides these material senses which 


1 Migne, P. G., 8, 940 A. 2 Ibid., 945 B. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 21 


guarantee a material reality, there are spiritual senses, replac- 
ing the material faculty in another realm of thought but 
guaranteeing the REALITY of the perceived olject —it is πίστις. 
By πίστις we possess a new eye, a new ear, and a new heart 
—new things become visible, hearable, perceptible. Hence, 
the conclusion must be: Ilco7s makes its objects as PRESENT 
to us as the material senses do their objects. Πίστις pre- 
sents realities as truly as our material senses do, or πίστις 
gives the same GUARANTEE for the REALITY of its objects 
as do the material senses. 

2. Προληψις. Clement not only borrows porns from 
Epicurus (who also defined πίστις as a προληψις) but also 
quotes his definition of the term: ἐπιβολὴν ere Ti evaryes, καὶ 
ἐπι THY εναγη τοῦ πραγματος erivoav.t ‘This is the classical 
passage. It means “the throwing oneself toward the VERY 
REAL and toward the clearer understanding of a thing which 
is in REALITY.” This is a kind of anticipation or precon- 
ception of reality. Thus nobody can, as Clement then pro- 
ceeds to show, “make a judicial inquiry, nobody can raise a 
question, nor éven argue without this rporAnys.” For some- 
thing must be taken for granted. It is of secondary importance 
for us to know that without being prepared for the accept- 
ance of the reality we are unable to do anything. But it is 
of primary importance for us to note that miotis as a προλη- 
yis is the preparedness a priori to accept the REALITY, and that 
this preparedness to accept is already the PERCEPTION OF THE 
REALITY. Thus πίστις becomes the REPRESENTATION OF 
THE REALITY IN ADVANCE, the ANTICIPATION OF REALITY. 

Whence we conclude that for Clement πίστις, as a συγκα- 
ταθεσις, is the REPRESENTATION OF A REALITY, and, as a 
mpornyis, it is the REPRESENTATION OF THE REALITY BY 
ANTICIPATION. We have here a combination of Tatian’s 
vrograots =“ anticipated possession” and Irenaeus’ πίστις 
= “vivid representation of a reality.” 


1 Migne, P. G., 8, 948 B. 


22 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


After having obtained a clear idea of Clement’s πίστις, it 
is of interest to us to know how he explains υποστασις which 
is identified with πίστις in Heb. xi, 1. I have found two 
usages of ὑποστασις in the writings of Clement: (a) in the 
participial form (υποσταντος), as the EMPHASIS OF REALITY 
IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY ; (6) ὑποστασις, as the TITLE- 
DEED TO PROPERTY. | 

In Stromata V, 4, Clement maintains that the Greeks 
plagiarized from the Hebrews in their doctrines. Thus Plato 
is accused of having taught that the world was created. 
Whereupon Clement remarks that Plato here not only shows 
that the earth was created, but also points out that it was 
generated as a son by God, — when ina state of non-existence 
it derived its being from Him alone,—QOs av ex povov 
γενομενου καὶ EK μη OVTOS ὑποσταντος. We have ὑποσταντος 
clearly as a contrast to NON-REALITY (μὴ ovtos). Hence, 
υποσταντος must be an emphasis of REALITY. 

The use of υποστασις in Stromata II, 18, is most inter- 
esting. Some have thought that here we have the first 
instance of ὑπόστασις as a term of distinction in the Trinity. 
In the words of Wilson,” “here Clement seems to designate 
the Human Nature of Christ — as being the quartum quid 
in addition to the Three Persons of the Godhead.” But 
that this interpretation is wholly a priori and a complete 
misunderstanding of Clement’s terminology will be evident 
from the sequel. For in the text there is no indication 
whatsoever of either the Human Nature of Christ, or of a 
distinction in the Godhead. Such a curious interpretation 
of the text very probably is merely the projection of the idea 
that υποστασις means person into the passage, and then the 
invention of the Human Nature of Christ to answer to the 
“fourth ὑποστασις,᾽" which the τὴν tov Kupiov τεταρτην ὑπο- 
στασιν of the text calls for. It is true that this passage 


1 Migne, P. G., 9, 186 B. 
2 The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, II, 56. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 23 


might have remained shrouded in darkness, had not the 
recent papyri studies brought to light an old but forgotten 
meaning of ὑποστασις = TITLE-DEEDS.! 

In Stromata, II, 18, Clement speaks of Christian ethics, 
especially of the Christian virtues. He enumerates ex- 
pressly four virtues, — piety, liberality, justice, and human- 
ity. Several times in the chapter he speaks of the law that 
gave certain prescriptions for the exercise of virtues, ¢.g., 
from the ‘first fruits” the priests of the Old Law were to 
be maintained. Then passing to the Christian law he em- 
phasizes the idea that the Christian law is also humane, — 
that HUMANITY IS COMBINED WITH THE CHRISTIAN VIR- 
tTuES. ‘The famous text where ὑποστασις is used occurs in 
an illustration of this doctrine. Clement takes his analogy 
from horticulture. By the civil law, newly planted trees 
were to be nourished three years in succession, and no fruit 
was to be plucked till the fourth year; this fruit was to be 
reserved to God as the fourth year’s lawful tribute. Clement 
then applies these facts to Christian life. In the fourth 
year the virtues which are the fruit of πίστις (piety, liber- 
ality, justice, and humanity) are consecrated to God (justice 
and humanity are connected), the fourth υὑποστασις of the 
Lord: H tetpas των apetov καθιερουται τω θεω, της τριτης ηδη 
μονης συναπτούσης, emt τὴν του Kupiov τεταρτην ὑποστασιν.3 
The parallel expresses this idea: since the fruit of the fourth 
year is by law dedicated to God as first-fruit, so the four 
virtues are dedicated to God as (emt with the Acc. can here 
only express finality)* the FoURTH Ὑποστασις of the Lord, 
or as the fourth year’s lawful ὑποστασις. According to the 
meaning of ὑποστασις in earlier documents and in Clement 


1 Cf. Moulton, Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, 27 sq., after showing that Gren- 
fel and Hunt in their Papyri-studies have given us a new meaning for uro- 
στασις, Says: ‘*In other words this word may be translated title-deeds.”’ 

2 Migne, P. G., 8, 1037 B. 

8 Cf. Pape. 


24 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


himself, the term could express the REAL POSSESSION, the 
REALITY BELONGING TO THE LORD. But the addition of 
the idea of the law in this instance suggests the only possible 
meaning to be that which we find also in the papyri, namely, 
the LAWFUL PROPERTY, or the TITLE-DEED of the Lord. 
This TITLE-DEED, however, includes absolutely the REALITY 
of the possession; it emphasizes rather the legality, the law- 
fulness of the fact that this REALITY belongs to God. 

Finally, in the light of these two usages of the term v7o- 
στασις can we reconstruct Clement’s interpretation of eAm- 
ζομενων ὑποστασις of Heb. xi,1? As already noted, Clement 
equated his definition of πίστις (the REPRESENTATION or 
PRESENTATION OF A SPIRITUAL REALITY) with Heb. xi, 1. 
Furthermore, the choice of Clement’s interpretation of vzro- 
στασις ελπιζομενῶν lies between the two meanings of the term 
υποστασις (as used by him), which senses, when taken in 
connection with our text, would yield: 1. wars is the rep- 
resentation of the REALITY of things hoped for; 2. πίστις 
is the (lawful) TITLE-DEED for the REALITY of things hoped 
for. 

Whichever of the two meanings we accept, the sense of 
the two formulae is essentially the same. For whoever has 
πίστις, has the REALITY of things hoped for, except that the 
second formula adds the interesting observation that the 
possessor of πίστις is not only in possession of the REALITY 
of things hoped for, but that he is in possession LAWFULLY, 
— that he has a RIGHT to this possession. We may here 
quote the words of Moulton:! “This word (vroctaci) may 
be translated title-deeds. Can we not see what depth of 
meaning that puts into the word? ‘Faith is the title-deeds 
of things hoped for’—men and women who received a 
promise from God counted that promise as being the title- 
deed to something they could not see yet, but which they 
were going to see some day.” j 

1 Op. cit., 28. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 25 


Lastly, Clement’s interpretation of ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις 
of Heb. xi, 1, either as (a) the REPRESENTATION OF THE 
REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, or (0) the TITLE-DEEDS TO 
THE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, completes and illus- 
trates what we found to be the most common meaning of 
vroctacis in the preceding writers, viz., the EMPHASIS OF 
REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY. 

With ORIGEN we enter the epochal field of Patristic lit- 
erature in which vzocracis became the technical term for 
“Person” in the Christological and Trinitarian contro- 
versies. It is not less important to the exegete than to the 
dogmatist to realize that in the process by which νποστασις 
took on this technical meaning, the previous sense of the 
term (reality in contrast to non-reality) controlled the devel- 
opment. To the dogmatist it is important in so far as it 
gives the historical reason for the employment of ὑποστασις 
as a term of distinction in the Trinity, and to the exegete 
it is interesting to see how the basic meaning of υὑποστασις, 
elsewhere maintained, in these controversies controls the 
development of the term as “ Person.” Accordingly, within 
the limits of this interest to the exegete the meaning of 
υποστασις in the Christological and Trinitarian controversies 
is pertinent to the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. 

As far as I can ascertain, Origen is the first writer to use 
υποστασις as a term of distinction in the Godhead. In the 
words of Bigg,! “the word for Person in Origen is com- 
monly Hypostasis.”” The constant use of υποστασις to ex- 
press the Personal distinction of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost occurs in the first three chapters of Origen’s 
De Principiis. In De Princip., I, 2, the Son is called the 
Wisdom of God. But lest some think that this Wisdom is 
a mere quality of the Father, he remarks, De Princip., I, 2, 
2, “ Let no one imagine that we mean anything insubstanti- 
vum,2 when we call Him the Wisdom of God.” We could 

1 Op. cit., 163 sq. 2 Migne, P. G., 11, 180 B. 


20. THE PAULINE PISTIS 


translate simply: “Let no one imagine that we mean any- 
thing unreal.” But he continues, “If then it is rightly 
understood, the Only-Begotten Son of God is the Wisdom 
hypostatically existing (substantialiter).”! What we must 
conclude from these two instances, although they are pre- 
served only in a Latin translation, is that Origen considers 
vroctacis (= substantia) as the emphasis of the REAL, 
INDIVIDUAL, Or PERSONAL EXISTENCE. Where he uses it as 
an expression for the Personality he indirectly includes the 
emphasis of the REALITY, since the REALITY is the conditio 
sine qua non for the Personality. 

Origen also uses vzroctacis in the sense of GUARANTEE, 
which shows that although the term was used by him so 
largely in the sense of Person, still it retained its previous 
meaning. In Contr. Cel., VI, 56, he says that God may send 
external evils for pedagogical reasons, as fathers chastise 
their children to bring about conversion. Thus, in the evils 
sent against Jerusalem the Jews had the υποστασις in these 
sufferings from the enemy for their being brought to repent- 
ance : Tnv υποστασιυν EYOVTA EV τοις ATTO τῶν πολεμίων 
πονοῖς, προσαγομενοις αὕτοις εἰς επιστροφην.2 Here υποστασις 
clearly means the GUARANTEE OF A FUTURE REALITY, 
which in our case is REPENTANCE. 

Whence we may conclude that in the general use of 
the term ὑπόστασις, Origen understands by it REALITY or 
GUARANTEE OF A FUTURE REALITY, and even as the tech- 
nical term for PERSON, the old meaning of the word, the 
EMPHASIS OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, is 
apparent. — 

Origen also quotes Heb. xi, 1 in his Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Romans. Unfortunately, this is preserved to 
us only in a Latin translation by Rufinus. It is not a strict 
exegesis of our text, and under ordinary circumstances it 
should be passed over with the aforesaid observation, were 


1 Migne, P. @., 11, 180 C. 2 Berl. Ed. Origen, II, 127. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 27 


it not for the fact that from the context it seems to favor an 
interpretation of ελπεζομενων ὑποστασις which is followed by 
later writers, namely, the FOUNDATION OF THINGS HOPED 
FoR. In discussing the plight of Abraham, when in his 
old age he was promised a son, Origen remarks that from 
the natural point of view the patriarch could only despair. 
But on considering the promises of God, HOPE sprang up in 
him and he BELIEVED. It is in connection with this state- 
ment, viz., that as in Abraham’s case so in all others HOPE 
is inseparably connected with Faith, Heb. xi, 1 is quoted: 
Apostolus coniungit et spem, sciens fidei spem insepara- 
biliter cohaerere, sciens et in Epistola ad Hebraeos idem 
docet dicens: EST AUTEM FIDES SPERANDARUM RERUM SUB- 
STANTIA, INDICIUM NON APPARENTIUM.! Further on our 
author shows how FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY are connected: 
Et puto quod prima salutis initia, et ipsa FUNDAMENTA 
FIDES est; profectus vero et augmenta aedificii SPES est ; 
perfectio autem et culmen totius operis CHARITAS.? From 
this evidence it would not be legitimate to conclude that 
Origen understood ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις of Heb. xi, 1 to 
be the FOUNDATION OF THINGS HOPED FOR, which is the 
interpretation of our text found in later writers and cham- 
pioned (as the chief meaning of the term ὑπόστασις.) by 
no less a theologian than Stentrup.* I cannot accept this 
explanation of Origen’s interpretation for the following 
reasons : 

1. Origen is comparing FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY by 
an analogy. The analogy is between the general doctrine 
of salvation and an edifice in which FAITH is compared to 
the FOUNDATION (Et puto quod firma salutis initia, et ipsa 


1 Migne, P. G., 14, 980 C. 

2 Migne, P. G., 14, 981 A. 

3¥F. Stentrup, Zum Begriff der Hypostase (Zk. Th. I (1877)), p. 78, ** Wir 
diirfen fiir ausgemacht annehmen.. . dass sie (υποστασις = Fundament) 
die urspriingliche ist, und die gew6hnliche war.”’ 


28 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


FUNDAMENTA FIDES est); HOPE to the added parts of the 
structure (profectus vero et augmenta aedificit SPES est); 
and CHARITY to the finished product (perfectio autem et 
culmen tottus opertg CHARITAS). So in applying this con- 
nection between FIDES and sPpEs to Heb. xi, 1 (for Origen 
used our text to show that FAITH and HOPE are inseparably 
connected) one could say only at most that FAITH is like a 
FOUNDATION for things HOPED FOR, because the statement 
of the connection between FAITH and HOPE is only an 
analogy. 

2. FOUNDATION is not the ordinary meaning of SUB- 
STANTIA (υποστασις) in the writings of Origen. We have 
found that our author employs ὑποστασις to express the 
EMPHASIS OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, and 
also in the technical sense of PERSON. 

3. The notion that vzoctacis means “foundation” is 
based on the false popular philology that derives the term 
quite correctly from verb vdiotavat, but then assigns to it 
an incorrect meaning. Hatch? has shown that the term is 
derived from υφίσταναι and expresses emphatic existence or 
reality. 

Hence, we conclude that Origen did not give a strict in- 
terpretation of Heb. xi, 1 in this passage. He used our 
text merely to show from Scripture that FAITH and HOPE 
are inseparably connected. 

As a disciple of Origen, and later as head of the Cate- 
chetical School and Bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius is 
interesting for the current notion of vzroctacis, not because 
he has left us an exegesis of our text, but rather in this that 
he introduced into the Trinitarian and Christological con- 
troversies the preceding meaning of the term (an EMPHASIS 
OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY) by verbally 


1 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian 
Church, p. 275: ‘*The term Hypostasis is the conjugate of the verb 
υφισταναι, which had come into use as a more emphatic form than εἰναι." 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 29 


contrasting ὑποστασις with avyroctatov. In his Hpist. ad 
Paul. Samosat,, our author says that the Word, Wisdom, 
and Form of God are not the word, wisdom, and form of 
man. The former have an INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE: Dei 
autem forma, Verbum ipsius et sapientia Filius Dei et 
Deus idem ipse confidendus θοῦ Whereas this is not true 
of man —his word, wisdom, power, and form are insubsis- 
tentiales partes of his make-up: verbum enim hominis et 
sapientia et virtus et forma znsubsistentiales partes unius 
hominis aspiciuntur.2. Here “insubsistentiales” (ανυπο- 
otara)*® means a quality not having INDIVIDUAL EXIST- 
ENCE. Whence we see that for Dionysius ὑποστασις is 
characterized by an EMPHASIS OF INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE 
in contrast to NON-INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE, or by a REALITY 
IN ITS COMPLETENESS. 

Although ALEXANDER, the Bishop of Alexandria, did not 
leave us an exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, still his characterization 
of the essence of the term ὑποστασιίς must be noted. In his 
Letter to the Bishops of the Arian Blasphemy (preserved 
by Theodoret), Alexander first notes that the Father and 
the Son are two inseparably existing REALITIES, aywpiota 
πραγματα δυο. Then he goes on to say that the Word can- 
not be included in the things which were made out of noth- 
ing, as John proved when he said, “ All things were made 
by Him” (John i, 3). For John showed the proper mode 
of His υποστασις when he said, “In the beginning was the 
Word, etc.”: Τὴν yap ιδιοτροόπον αὐτου υποστασιν εδηλωσεν 
εὐπὼν " Ev ἀρχὴ nv ο Λογος, καὶ ο Λογος nv προς τον Θεον.ὃ 

What is the meaning of ὑποστασις here? The sense may 
be given in three propositions : 


1 Migne, P. G., 28, 1562 D. 

2 Ibid. 

ὃ Petavius has preserved or reconstructed the Greek text: Λογος ‘yap 
avOpwrov, και copia και δυναμις, και μορρῴφη ανυποστατα μερὴ Tov evos avOpw- 
που θεωρειται. Cf. De Trinit., Lib. IV, c. 8, p. 195. 

4Migne, P. G., 82, 893 B. 5 Ibid. 


30 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


1. Ὑποστασις is something which can be predicated of a 
πραγμα, t.e., OL a REALLY EXISTING THING. 

2. The υποστασις of the Son demands that He be distin- 
guished from all created things. ‘Therefore, the Son’s υπο- 
στασις is from one point of view characterized by ETERNAL 
PREEXISTENCE. 

3. The MANNER OF THIS ETERNAL PREEXISTENCE is 
described as the PROPER MANNER of the Son’s vrocrtacts, 
t.e., εν ἀρχὴ nv and nv προς tov Geov. These modes of EX- 
ISTING in His PREEXISTENCE explain How HE WAS, i.e., 
HIs INDIVIDUAL AND PREEXISTING REALITY, HIS DIVINE 
PERSONALITY. INDIVIDUALITY and PREEXISTENCE con- 
cern the ἐδιοτροπος, whereas ὑποστασις must mean REALITY 
or PERSONALITY. Note how INDIVIDUALITY, ?.e., complete- 
ness, is again connected with the notion of REALITY. 

Like Dionysius and Alexander before him, ATHANASIUS 
has not left us an interpretation of Heb. xi, 1; still, as he 
was the center of the Christological and Trinitarian contro- 
versies which gave rise to the new meaning of ὑποστασις, his 
notion of the term must be noted, especially since he practi- 
cally abandoned the technical sense of the term and often 
returned to the older sense of ὑποστασις as the EMPHASIS of 
εἰναι. In his letter Ad Afros. 4, Athanasius decisively 
identifies ὑπόστασις with ovo.a and explains them both as 
the EMPHATIC REALITY: H δε υὑποστασις ovoia εστι, Kat 
δ᾽ οὐδὲν αλλο σημαίνομενον exer ἡ αὑτὸ To ον. This shows 
clearly that ὑποστασις means nothing else than the to ον = 
the REALITY. Then, as if this were not clear enough, Atha- 
nasius identifies both ὑποστασις and ovova with υπαρξις in a 
reference to Jeremias.2, This makes it unmistakably clear 
that ὑποστασις is REALITY, since ὕπαρξις ? is the ORIGINALLY 
EXISTING REALITY, an EMPHASIS of the To ον. 


1 Migne, P. G., 26, 1036 B. 2 Ibid. 
3 Cf. Schumacher, Christus in Seiner Préexistenz und Kenose, nach 
Phil., 2, 5-8. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 31 


As Defender of the Faith, Athanasius, in the words of 
Gregory Nazianzus, took the practical attitude, “getting at 
the meaning behind the terms used.” A practical instance 
of this attitude, and at the same time a most remarkable. 
example of the meaning of ὑπόστασις in the theological con- 
troversies, is the trial of the two parties (one held for tpes 
vrootaces in the Trinity and the other for wa υποστασις) 
just before the Council of Alexandria. Those who main- 
tained that there were τρεῖς υὑποστασεις in the Trinity were 
asked whether they understood it like the Arians in the 
sense of three diverse substances, as gold, silver, and brass, 
or like the older heretics, as three gods. They answered 
that they never even imagined such queer things. And when 
asked, ‘In what sense, then, do you use such expressions ?”’ 
they answered, “‘ Because we believe in the Holy Trinity, 
not as a Trinity in name only, but in truth and REALITY, — 
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost TRULY and REALLY EX- 
ISTING: Ava To es ayav Τριαδα πιστεύειν, ove ονοματι Tpi- 
ada μονον, arr αληθως ουσαν και vdectacar, Πατερα 
τε ἀληθως οντα καὶ υφεστωτα, καὶ Troy αληθως ενουσιον οντα 
και υφεστωτα, καὶ Ἰνευμα αγιον υφεστως Kat ὑπαρχον οἰδαμεν.᾽" 3 
Here the old notion of υποστασις as REALITY is put in strik- 
ing relief. Ὑποστασις is used for a TRUE REALITY (T¢e- 
στωσαν). Since the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost each have 
a TRUE REALITY, which TRUE REALITY in its EXISTENCE 
is expressed by forms derived from υφίσταναι (the stem for 
υποστασις = EMPHATIC EXISTENCE).? Hence, we conclude 
that Athanasius is a strong witness for the old meaning of 
ὑποστασις as the EMPHASIS of the REAL. 

Although EvusrEpius has not written an interpretation 
of Heb. xi, 1, still we cannot leave entirely unnoticed his 
remarkable witness to the usage of ὑποστασις in the sense 


1 Οἵ, Gregory Nazianzus, In Laudem Ath., 85; Migne, P. G., 35, 1125 B. 
2 Migne, P. G., 26, 801 B. 
3 Cf. Hatch, Op. cit., p. 275. 


32 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


of REALITY in contrast to NON-REALITY (ανυποστατον). In 
Constantine’s Oration to the Saints, 6, Eusebius says that 
in the face of the most harmonious order observable in 
nature chance has no meaning. For he asks, “Shall we dare 
to say that all things happen by chance (avrouarov), though 
we be unable to show by what shape or form this chance is 
characterized: as it is a thing which has no ὑποστασις either 
in the intellect or in sense perception —a thing which rings 
in the ears as an empty sound: ὑποστασιν οὐδεμίαν exov οὔτε 
voepws ovt αἰσθητως, μονον δ᾽ ote nxXoS ονοματος ανυποστατοῦυ 
περι ta wta βομβει."} Chance has, therefore; neither a men- 
tal nor a visible ὑποστασις, which can here mean only “no 
mental nor visible REALITY,” it is only an empty word, a 
word which in itself has no REALITY (ανυποστατον). We 
see here the word υποστασις clearly used to emphasize 
REALITY in striking contrast to its negation, NON-REALITY 
(ανυποστατον). 

Besides giving an exegesis of our text, CYRIL OF JERUSA- 
LEM applies the old sense of vroctacis as the EMPHASIS OF 
REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY to the Trinitarian 
problem. In Cat. XI, 10, he says that the Father begot the 
Son, not as among men mind begets word. For mind is 
substantially existent in us; the word when spoken is dis- 
persed into the air and comes to an end. But we know the 
Christ to have been begotten not as a word pronounced, but 
as a Word eatsting (ενυποστατος) and living; not spoken by 
the lips and dispersed into the air, but ev υποστασει begot- 
ten of the Father eternally and ineffably: Hye δὲ ovdapev 
tov Χριστον γεννηθεντα λογον ov προφορικον, αλλα λογον 
ενυποστατον καὶ ζωντα" ov χείλεσι λαληθεντα και διαχυ- 
θεντα, adr εκ Ilatpos αἰδιως καὶ ἀανεκφραστως, καὶ εν ὑπο- 
otacet γεννηθεντα.2 Although υποστασις is used here in 
the sense of PERSON, the original meaning (REALITY in con- 
trast to NON-REALITY) is still clearly evident. For in con- 


1 Berl. Ed., Eusebius, I, 161. 2 Migne, P. G., 38, 701 B. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 33 


trast to the ανυποστατος Aoyos pronounced by human lips, 
which loses its REALITY by being dispersed into the air, the 
Eternal Word is called the ενυπόστατος Λογος, the Word 
REALLY EXISTING and retaining REALITY. 

As the text for his Lecture on πίστις, Cyril chooses Heb. 
xi, 1. Although this lecture is not a strict exegesis of our 
text, yet both edmifouevwv ὑποστασις and edeyyos ov βλεπο- 
pevov receive a general elucidation. In Cat. V, 3, Cyril 
enumerates what, it must be remarked, are the classical 
examples of πίστις throughout the Patristic literature.? 

1. By πίστις the laws of marriage yoke those who have 
lived as strangers; and by reason of πίστις in marriage con- 
tracts a stranger is made partner of a stranger’s person and 
possessions. 

2. By mots, also, husbandry is sustained, πίστει καὶ yewp- 
γία συνισταται.323 For he who does not believe that he shall 
receive a harvest endures not the toil. | 

3. By πίστις seafaring men trusting to the thinnest plank 
exchange the most solid element, the land, for the restless 
motion of the waves, committing themselves to unevident hopes 
(αδηλοις eavTous επιδιδοντες ελπισι) ὃ and carrying with them 
a πίστις more sure than any anchor. 

In the first instance, πέστις seems to have a meaning which 
we have already met with in Clement of Alexandria and in 
the papyri: TITLE-DEEDS. For this πίστις is the GUARAN- 
TEE for the REALITY of the person and the possessions. In 
the second example, we have clearly the meaning ANTICIPA- 
TION OF REALITY. This anticipation gives the farmer the 


1 The following authors use the same examples of πίστις, which are simi- 
lar in cases to an identity of language: Origen, Contra Cel. I, 9; Rufinus, 
Com. on the Apostles’ Creed, 3; Augustine, De Util. Credendi, chs. 1 and 
2; Arnobius, Contr. Gentes, 2; Eusebius, Praepar. Evangel., I, 5, and XI, © 
chs. 1, 2, 3; Chrysostom, Hom. I, In Tim. ; Theodoret,—transcribes Cyril 
of Jer. in De Curandis Graec. Affectibus, Orat. I, De Fide; Gregory the 
Great, Dialog., IV, 2; John Damascene, Orthodox. Fid., IV, 11. 

2 Migne, P. G., 33, 508 B. 3 Ibid. 


24 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


courage to endure the hardships of his work. Yet in both 
of these cases “fiducia” would yield a sufficiently clear 
sense. But in the third example, REALITY is emphasized. 
For here we have in αδηλοὶς = “ unevident” an element that 
we found before: “ what is not seen,’ “what is not PRES- 
ENT” becomes visible and present. And we have in επιδιδον- 
τες a trust which includes CERTAINTY of the existence of the 
thing “not seen,” which is still further explained as “surer 
than any anchor.” 

Hence, we see that in both the Trinitarian problem and in 
his lecture on πίστις, which has for its text Heb. xi, 1, Cyril 
understands by ὑποστασις an EMPHASIS OF REALITY in con- 
trast to NON-REALITY. Accordingly, his exegesis of our text 
should very probably be rendered: FAITH is the reality of 
things hoped for (the anticipation of the reality of future 
things), or, FAITH is that which makes REAL “ things hoped 
for.” 

The same EMPHASIS of REALITY in contrast to NON- 
REALITY, as the primary meaning of ὑπόστασις, is set 
forth by BAsiu in a special study of the term, (4) in its 
general usage, and (6) in its application to the Trinitarian 
problem. This is the theme of Epist. XXXVIII to his 
brother Gregory, a letter which the Council of Chalcedon 
read with reverence and instruction. Herein Basil points 
out the fundamental difference between ὑποστασις and οὐσία 
to be this: What is common to numerically different sub- 
jects is οὐσία, and what is proper to each subject is vrrooracts. 
Thus “man” is common to Paul, Timothy, and Sylvanus. 
Whatever indicates the ovova of Paul may also be applied to 
the ουσια of Timothy and Sylvanus. What they have in 
common is the ovova—‘“man.” When one turns to the 
differentiating properties whereby Paul, Timothy, and Syl- 
vanus are distinguished one from another, we shall find that 
the definition by which each is known will no longer tally. 

1 Counc. of Chalcedon, Part ITI, c. 1. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 90 


That which is spoken of in a special or peculiar manner is 
indicated by the name Hypostasis: Tovto τοίνυν φαμεν" To 
Lows λεγομενον TW TNS UTTOTTaTEwS δηλουσθαι pnuati.1 Then 
by way of illustration, Basil suggests that if one were to say, 
“Man,” the indefinite meaning of the word would strike a 
certain vague sense upon the ears. The nature is indicated, 
but the CONCRETE thing which REALLY EXISTS AND WHICH 
MANIFESTS REALITY under the name (man) is not pointed 
out. But this is the ὑποστασις, viz., το de υφεστως Kat δηλου- 
μενον LOLwS ὑπὸ TOV ονοματος mpayua*; that which manifests 
the mpayya is the reality under the mere name. Here the 
REALLY EXISTING THING (To udeotws) and the MANIFESTED 
REALITY (δηλούμενον tdvws ὑπὸ Tov ονοματος mpayyua) are the 
two principal elements of vrroctacis. Then Basil continues, 
“Should one say ‘ Paul,’ he would point out the REALLY ἘΧ- 
ISTING NATURE that goes by that name: O de IlavAov emp, 
εδειξεν ev Tw δηλουμενω ὑπὸ TOU ονοματος πραγματι υφεστωσαν 
τὴν dvow: Τουτο ovy ἐστιν ἡ ὑποστασις. 38 Here the REALLY 
EXISTING nature (υφεστωσαν την φυσιν) in the CONCRETE RE- 
ALITY, as it is manifested by the name Paul (ev τω δηλουμενω 
ὑπο του ονοματος πραγματι). is clearly pointed out. In both 
of these definitions of vrroctacis these two elements seem to 
be paramount: 

1. THAT WHICH REALLY EXISTS (To δὲ udeotas of the 
first, and υφεστωσαν την φυσιν of the second definition). 

2. THE CONCRETE REALITY (δηλούμενον ἰδίως ὑπο Tov ovo- 
ματος πραγμα of the first, and ev tw δηλουμενω ὑπο Tov ονομα- 
Tos πραγματι of the second definition). 

The first is clearly the element of REALITY in vroctaats, 
because both υφεστως and υφεστωσαν are forms of the stem 
υφίσταναι (EMPHATIC EXISTENCE = REALITY), which is also 
the stem from which ὑποστασις is derived. The second is 
the REALITY (7payyua) manifested directly by the name. 


1 Benedictine Ed., Basil, III, I, 166 B. 3 Ibid. 
2 Ibid. 4 Cf. Hatch, Op. cit., 275. 


36 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Basil then illustrates his definition of ὑποστασις by appli- 
cation to the Trinitarian problem. He points out what the 
Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity have in common and 
what peculiar notes distinguish them hypostatically. The 
Infinite, the Uncreated, the Uncircumscribed are all qualities 
of their common οὐσία. These they have in common, but 
only the Father has πατροτὴς ; only the Son has worns, and 
only the Holy Ghost has exzropevois. ‘The υὑποστασις is seen 
in these ἐδιωματα of the Persons: H δὲ vroctacis ev Tw ιδιω- 
ματι TNS TATPOTNTOS, ἡ της VLOTNTOS, ἡ της αγιαστικης δυναμεως 
θεωρειται.:} Now we come to the crucial point in the exposi- 
tion of the meaning of vrocracis. “ Merely to enumerate 
the different Persons is not sufficient,” says Basil, “ we must 
also confess each Person to have a natural EXISTENCE IN 
TRUE HYPOSTASIS: Ov yap εξαρκει διαφορας προσώπων atra- 
ριθμησασθαι, αλλα χρὴ εκαστον προσωπὸν εν ὑποστάσει 
αληθινη ὕπαρχον ομολογειν.᾽ 2 Το deny that the ἐδίωμα has 
REAL EXISTENCE was precisely the error of Sabellius, who 
admitted and indeed spoke of different Persons. But these 
προσωπα were ανυποστατα;--- mere names to designate the 
various metamorphoses of God Who was indeed one in mat- 
ter: Eve τὸν ye ανυποστατον των προσώπων αναπλασμον 
ovde ο Σαβελλιος παρητησατο, εἰπὼν Tov avtov θεον, eva τω 
-UTTOKELMEVM OVTA, TPOS TAS EKAOTOTE παραπιίπτουσας χρβειας 
μεταμορφουμενον, νυν μεν ὡς Πατερα, νυν de ws Ὑτον, νυν de ὡς 
Πνευμα αγιον διαλεγεσθαι.8 But to say that the Persons of 
the Blessed Trinity are ανυπόστατα is absurd (εἰ μεν ovy ανυ- 
ποστατα λεγουδσιν Ta προσώπα, αὐτοθεν exe O λογος THY aTo- 
muav),* because ὑπόστασις demands that the ἐδιωματα of the 
Blessed Trinity REALLY EXIST. In fact, in De Spiritu 
Sancto, XVIII, 4, Basil simply defines the υὑποστασις of the 
Holy Ghost as a tpozros τῆς ὑπαρξεως, a “mode of REAL 
EXISTENCE.” This is the conclusion of his argument wherein 


1 Benedictine Ed., Basil, 1Π|, Il, 467 E. 3 Ibid. 
2 Ibid., 458 A. 4 Ibid., 467 E. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 37 


he describes the ἐδιωμα of the Holy Ghost to be the “ One 
Proceeding” from God as “ breath from the mouth.” By so 
explaining the matter, says Basil, the close relation is made 
plain, while the MODE OF INEFFABLE EXISTENCE is safe- 
guarded (tov de τρόπου της ὑπαρξεως appntov φυλασσομενου). 
As the sequel will show, τρόπος της ὑπαρξεως will become one 
of the classical equivalents for the term ὑποστασις in the 
Trinitarian controversy. 

In conclusion, we may say that in Basil’s classic study of 
υποστασις, both in its general usage and in its application 
to the Trinitarian problem, the term primarily means the 
REAL EXISTENCE IN CONTRAST TO NON-EXISTENCE. 

In the writings of GREGORY oF NyssA we meet the most 
striking exegesis of ελπιζομενων ὑποστασίς, as the GUARAN- 
TEE OF THE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR. This note- 
worthy interpretation occurs in Contra Eunomium, XII, 
where Gregory maintains that Christian πίστις is the ὑπο- 
στασις of “things hoped for” and not of things known: Η δε 
των Χριστιανων πίστις, οὐχ οὕτως. Ov yap Tov γινώσκομενων, 
αλλα των ελπιζομενων ἐστιν ὑποστασις " To δε διακρατουμενον 
οὐκ ἐλπιίζεται. O yap exe τις, φησι, τι καὶ ἐλπιΐζει;} For ἃ 
thing altogether under one’s control (διακρατουμενον) and 
which one has as his own (eyet), why hope for it? This 
suggests that ελπιζομενα are in the nature of possessions, 
though only in a limited sense. This is the function of 
πίστις, ---- to make these limited possessions real and absolute 
by means of ὑυποστασις, which Gregory next explains in the 
clearest exposition of the matter we have yet seen in the 
exegesis of our text: “But that which escapes our compre- 
hension, πίστις makes our own (npetepov).” Then he adds 
the reason, —‘‘ By its own proper firmness GUARANTEEING 
(eyyvopueva) that which is unseen”: To δὲ διαφευγον τὴν 
κατανοησιν ἡμῶν, ἡμέτερον ἡ πίστις ποίει, δια της ιἰδιας 
βεβαιότητος εΕὙὙ υωμενὴ To wn φαινομενον.2 Thus by πίστις 

1 Migne, P. G., 45, 941 C. 2 Ibid. 


38 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


“hoped-for things” become our POSSESSIONS (ἡμέτερον) by 
guarantee. Πίστις by reason of its fixing things solidly in 
our mind (by some kind of presentation, since they are also 
called μη φαινομενα) is the GUARANTEE OF THE UNSEEN 
REALITY. In a word, πίστις is the GUARANTEE OF THE 
REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR. | 

This understanding of Gregory’s interpretation of vzo- 
στασις aS the GUARANTEE OF REALITY is confirmed by 
another instance of his use of the term in connection with 
πίστις and eds. The passage is found in Contra Hunomium, 
I, where he speaks of hopes lacking REALITY (avvroctatat 
ἐλπίδες), because they depend for their vrrocraois on a fool- 
ish faith {πίστις ματαία), which in turn is based on the 
empty heretical teaching (xevov xnpvyua) that the Son is 
inferior to the Father: Ὄντων yap των τοίουτων, ματαία μεν ἢ 
πίστις, Kevov δὲ TO κηρυγμα, ανυποσταταῖι δε αἱ ἐλπίδες, αἱ 
δια της πίστεως την ὑποστασιν εχουσι.1 If the Son is inferior 
to the Father, our hopes lack their true ὑπόστασις, their 
true REALITY, since they are based on a foolish πίστις ; 
whereas a true πίστις furnishes a true ὑποστασις and conse- 
quently the REALITY of the thing hoped for. Thus the 
contrast of a foolish muoris, which makes the objects of hope 
unreal, with the effect of the true πίστις, which gives REAL- 
ITY to them, is put in emphatic relief. 

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM improves on the exegesis of Gregory 
of Nyssa and all the preceding authors who understand 
vroctacis to mean primarily REALITY by pointing out that 
πίστις through υὑποστασις, not only gives REALITY to “ things 
hoped for,’ but zs also their οὐσία. It is of some inter- 
est to remark, in passing, that Chrysostom links the two 
parts of Heb. xi, 1, ελπιζομενων υποστασις and edeyyos ov 
βλεπομενων, making the second explanatory and confirma- 
tory of the first. In Homil. XXI, 2, on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, Chrysostom interprets ελπιζομενων υπόοστασις, 

1 Migne, P. G., 45, 340 B. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 39 


showing that it is the office of πίστις to see things not seen 
visibly by the senses in such a way as to make things “not 
seen” as real as those that are seen. For just as it is im- 
possible to disbelieve in things seen, so no one can be said to 
have πίστις, unless he is as fully assured with respect to 
things invisible as he is to things visible. And the reason 
for this is that πίστις gives ὑποστασις to objects of hope, 
which seem to be UNREAL (avvroctata), or rather does 
not give them ὑπόστασις, but is their very BEING: Ezreidn 
yap Ta ev ελπιδι ανυποστατα etvalt δοκει, ἡ πίστις 
υποστασιν autos χαριζεται" μαλλον δε, ov χαριζεταῖι, 
arr αὐτο εστιν ουσια αὐυτων.} This is a most striking 
explanation. Chrysostom even insists that we should give 
things of Faith, which are invisible, a greater assurance than 
we give to visible things. And this is the reason,— πέστις 
gives REALITY (υποστασις) to these objects of hope which 
seem UNREAL (avutootata εἰναι δοκεῖ), or better, πίστις is 
their VERY BEING (ovoid). 

Then Chrysostom illustrates his exegesis by the example 
of our resurrection at the last day, which has not yet 
come, nor does it EXIST IN REALITY (εν ὑποστασει), but 
hope makes it REALLY EXIST IN OUR SOULS: Quov, ἡ ava- 
στασις OV παραγεγονεν, ουδὲ ἐστιν EV UTTOTTATEL, AAN ἡ EATS 
υφιστησιν αὑτὴν ev τὴ nuetepa ψυχη.2 The resurrection at 
the last day, of course, does not yet EXIST IN REALITY (ovde 
εστιν ev ὑποστασει), but ἐλπὶς causes the resurrection to be 
REAL (υφιστησιν) in our souls. This clearly shows that 
πίστις through ὑποστασις does not make “ things hoped for” 
REAL objectively, but rather REAL subjectively. Just as our 
resurrection at the last day has not yet occurred, nor 
EXISTS IN REALITY, so objects of hope are things of the 
future, and do not REALLY EXIST YET, as seen in the ordi- 
nary way, but nevertheless they do REALLY EXIST after the 
manner in which πίστις causes them to EXIST in the soul, 

1 Chrysostom, Vol. 22, 322. 2 Ibid. 


40 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


viz., by giving them ovova in the soul. In a word, πίστις is | 
the REPRESENTATION of a FUTURE REALITY in the soul, 
which is as REAL to us as the visible universe. 

CyRIL OF ALEXANDBIA in his interpretation of our text 
insists upon one point, viz., whatever is the object of hope 
or of Faith must be free from all questioning. In his Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xi, 1), he 
says: “ Whatever has been received by πίστις, ought to be 
beyond curious meddlesomeness, and to overbold investiga- 
tion it ought not to be even the subject of question. For 
whatever is yet questioned (το ζητουμενον) is not πίστις. For 
anything which is subject to testing, how can it still be be- 
lieved? To ye μὴν πίστει παραδεχθεν atrodkuvTpaypovnTtov 
eval χρη, AAN’ ov θρασυτεραις worrep εκβασανιζειν epevvars. 
Πιστις yap οὐκ ete το ζητουμενον. To yap τοι Ba- 
σανιξομενον πῶς ett πεπίστευται; 1 In this passage the 
object of πίστις is described as that which is free from 
all QUESTIONING (ζητουμενον) and TESTING (βασανιζομενον) .3 
These expressions sound natural, if they are used for visibly 
evident realities, which we can perceive through our senses. 
It is surprising that they are used for the invisible objects 
of πίστις and eAmis. The force of the expression is strik- 
ing: By πίστις and eAmis their respective objects become as 
evident and real as visibly evident realities in ordinary life- 
They do not make and produce these realities, but they 
represent them as evident realities to those who have πίστις 
or edmis. Hence, πίστις and edmis are the means that pre- 
sent to us realities, otherwise unknown to us. Cyril con- 
firms this interpretation by further comparing πίστις and ελ- 
mis, saying that if ἐλπὶς is “seeing things without question,” 
then surely it ought to be true of πίστις, “ which is alto- 
gether free from test”: Ovzrep yap τροπον edmis βλεπομενὴ 
αζητητον, πίστις οὐκ αν εἰὴ κατα TOY LoOY ελπίδι AOYOV; TO 
γαρπίιστει τετιμημενον βασανου παντως ελευθερον.ὃ 

1 Migne, P. 6., 14, 989 C. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 989 Ὁ. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 4] 


This understanding of Cyril’s interpretation is confirmed 
by Cyril’s notion of ὑποστασις as REALITY, expressed in 
his Commentary on St. John, Lib. V, c. 5. Here, speak- 
ing of the Son of God as the Word and Wisdom of the 
Father spoken in Him, Cyril says that the Word is not 
ανυποστατος, as the human word, but living and having 
its Own EXISTENCE (ὑπαρξιν) in the Father and with the 
Father: Καὶ επείπερ ἐστιν ove ανυποστατος ὠσπερ o 
avOpwrivos, adr’ evovotos τε καὶ ζων ὡς ἰδιαν ἐεχων εν Π]ατρι 
καὶ peta Ilatpos την ὙΠΑΡΞΊΝ.: In this context ὑποστασις 
means even more than reality. The human word is cer- 
tainly real to some extent. But it has not the ἐδιαν vrapéw. 
Thus ὑποστασις supposes a complete, individual, and perfect 
reality. So we conclude that ελπιζομενων υὑποστασις, for 
Cyril, meant the perfect REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, or 
THAT WHICH CAUSES THINGS OF HOPE TO BE PERFECTLY 
AND COMPLETELY REAL. 

As an interpreter of our text, THEODORE OF Mopsvu- 
ESTIA is of no value, since he merely gives the author’s reason 
for discussing πίστις in this Epistle. Yet this reason is of 
some interest to us, as it seems to foreshadow at least vaguely 
a later exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, viz., CONFIDENCE in Christ, 
which justifies in opposition to justification by works. The 
reason assigned for a special treatment of πίστις is that the 
Hebrews had a false idea of justification. Their doctrine 
was that men were justified by works, whereas πέστις was 
given as the cause of justification by the Christians who were 
wont to say: ‘Even if bound by a thousand evils, ONE BE- 
LIEVING his lot to be alone with Christ {πίστευσας povov 
Χριστω cvvtowoy) receives delivery from all sins, being made 
worthy of justification through Him: Tovro λεγοντες, ort kav 
μυριοις τις EVEYNTAL κακοῖς, πιστεύσας μονον XploTw συντομον 
ἁπάντων dSexeTat τὴν απολλαγην, τῆς παρ᾽ αὐτου δικαιωσεως 
afvovpevos.” 2 It is hard to say just what Theodore meant. 

1 Migne, P. G., 18, 844 B. 2 Ibid., 66, 965 B. 


42 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


But the use of the term πέίστευσας (trusting), for the expla- 
nation of πίστις (in the sense that those who have muotis shall 
find delivery from all sins), seems to point to the meaning 
fiducia for vrocracits. We shall find this exceptional and 
remarkable notion very late again in the Middle Ages. 

In his interpretation of our text THEODORET sums up the 
exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom. 
Like Clement, Theodoret wrote a special treatise on FAITH, 
Pro. Cur. Graec. I, Περι Ttcrews, and from the same point 
of view, viz., that πίστις is approved by classical Greek antiq- 
uity. His dependence on Clement in the general treatment 
of the theme, in the quotations cited, and in definitions for- 
mulated, amounts, in cases, to an identity of language. And 
what is most important is that he accepts just that definition 
of πίστις which Clement gives as an equation of Heb. xi, 1.1 

Theodoret’s words on Heb. xi, 1, in his Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Hebrews are as follows: Those things which 
we do not see (by the senses), we see by means of πίστις ; 
and for the viewing of things hoped for, πίστις becomes for 
us an EYE SHOWING AS REALLY EXISTING (ως υφεστωτα) 
things which have not as yet happened: Ta yap ovy opwpeva 
δια ταυτης ορωμεν, καὶ προς την των ελπιζομενων θεωριαν 0%- 
ΘΑΛΜΟΣ ημῖιν γινεταῖ, καὶ δεικνυσιν ὩΣ ὙΦΕΣΤΩΤΑ Ta μηδεπω 
γεγενημενα.2 In “things hoped for,” πίστις becomes for us 
an EYE seeing aS REALITIES (@s v¢eotwta) things which 
have not yet happened. In other words, ὑποστασις is the 
factor that represents to us realities otherwise unknown. 
It is the representation of reality. Our author becomes even 
more expressive in Diog. I, where he thus answers the ques- 
tion: Is there a difference between ὑπόστασις and ουσιαΐ: 
H τε yap ovata To ον σημαίνει, καὶ το vpertos ἡ ὑποστασις.ὃ 


1In Pro. Cur. Graec. I, Theodoret thus defines πίστις: Κατα de τον ἡμε- 


τερον λογον πίστις ἐστιν εκουσιος THs ψυχης συγκαταθεσις. Migne, P. G., 88, 
815 A. 
2 Migne, P. G., 82, 757 A. 3 Tbid., 83, 33 B. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 43 


Tdeoros is emphatic REALITY. Hence, for Theodoret, vzro- 
στασις is the EMPHASIS of REALITY. Πίστις is that which 
causes “things hoped for” to be perfectly REAL. But as 
“things hoped for” are also invisible, they must be repre- 
sented to us by something analogous to the eye, if we are to 
see them. Theodoret, like Clement of Alexandria, uses the 
picture of the “spiritual eye” which represents “things 
hoped for” to the mind as REALITIES. In a word, πίστις 
presents a REALITY in its proper sphere, as our senses present 
REALITIES in their sphere. 

Then, like Chrysostom, Theodoret illustrates his exegesis 
of our text by the example of the resurrection of the body 
at the last day. Πίστις paints for us beforehand the resur- 
rection of all those now lying in their graves, and makes 
VISIBLE the immortality of bodily dust: Tov νεκρων ἁπαντων 
εν τοῖς Taos ETL κείμενων, ἡ πίστις ἡμῖν προζωγραῴφει 
THV AVACTAGLY, καὶ τῆς KOVEMS τῶν σῶώματῶν Τὴν αθανασιαν 
παρασκευαΐζει φανταζεσθαι.1 The resurrection is brought 
into our mind by the anticipating REPRESENTATION-WORK 
of πιστὶς (προζωγραφει)., aS ἃ FUTURE REALITY already seen 
(φανταζεσθαι). Πιστις causes this object of hope, the resur- 
rection, which has not yet occurred, TO EXIST REALLY FOR 
US BY ANTICIPATION. 

Thus, for Theodoret, πίστις (as ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις) 
means that faith is the (spiritually) visible REALITY of 
things which have not yet happened, the ANTICIPATION of a 
FUTURE REALITY. 

The traditional meaning of ὑποστασις as the EMPHASIS 
OF REALITY IN CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY is very pithily 
set forth by LEonTIUS OF BYZANTIUM in De Sectis, actio VII. 
Here the author gives two definitions to both υποστασις and 
ανυποστατον. Ὑποστασις means either (a) simple EXISTENCE 
— το ἀπλως ov,” or (6) EXISTENCE per se as an individual — 
to καθ᾽ eavto ov.2 Here we see that a thing which is ενυπο- 

1 Migne, P. G., 82, 757 B. 2 Ibid., 86, 1240 D. 3 Ibid. 


Af THE PAULINE PISTIS 


στατος (υποστασις), is fundamentally connected with the 
idea of EXISTING REALITY, either as that which SIMPLY 
EXISTS or that which EXISTS PER SE AS AN INDIVIDUAL. 
Ανυποστατον also has a twofold meaning, Αλλα καὶ To ανυ- 
ποστατον duttov:1 (a) That which exists in no way, as the 
fabulous goat-stag or the centaur, λέγεται yap ανυποστατον, 
και TO μηδαμῶς ον, ὡς τραγέλαφος καὶ ὑπποκενταυρος :2 (δ) That 
which has not tts own ὑποστασις. but has ὑποστασις in another 
thing, or that which per se does NOT EXIST: Aeyetat παλιν 
ανυποόστατον, OU TO μὴ OV μεν, TO EXO δὲ EV ETEPW THY ὑποστα- 
σιν, Kat μη καθ᾽ εαυτο udiotapevov.® It could hardly be shown 
with more clarity that ἀνυπόστατον is predicated of some- 
thing that lacks REAL EXISTENCE, either NO EXISTENCE AT 
ALL, or AN IMPERFECT EXISTENCE IN SOMETHING ELSE. 
_ In this citation Leontius unmistakably witnesses to the 
interpretation of ὑποστασις aS REAL EXISTENCE in verbal 
contrast to ανυποόστατον, that which lacks PROPER EXISTENCE, 
OR IS ALTOGETHER FICTITIOUS. 


With even more precision than Leontius of Byzantium, 
Maximus MARTYR defines υὑποστασις in terms of EXISTENCE, 
as τὸ εἰναι and υὑπαρξις (the emphasis of evar). In Dialog. 
I, 2, Maximus distinguishes between vzrectacts and ovova in 
terms of EXISTENCE: H μὲν yap vroctacis To εἰναι on- 
paver ἡ Se θεοτης to τι εἰναι. Here are the Trinitarian 
terms: | 

To eva signifies ‘* quis est.” 

To τι evat signifies “ quid est.” 

Ὑποστασίς means the reality of perfect individual exist- 
ence. We have here ὑπόστασις completely in the atmosphere 
of the Trinitarian terminology. But the original meaning is 
still evident: the θεοτὴης signifies the essence, and υὑποστασις 
means the individually existing thing. 


1 Migne, P. G., 86, 1240 D. 3 Ibid. 
2 Ibid. 4 Migne, P. G., 28, 1120 A. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 45 


As Theodoret summarized in his interpretation of our 
text both the exegesis of Clement of Alexandria and John 
Chrysostom, so JOHN DAMASCENE has summarized the com- 
mon Patristic notion of ὑποστασίις, and applied the same briefly 
in the explanation of ελπεζομενων ὑποστασις. Chapter 42 of 
the Damascene’s Dialectica is entitled Ileps Ὑποστασεως. 
Here the author distinguishes two senses in which ὑποστασις 
has been used: (4) Simple EXISTENCE, vote μὲν τὴν ἀπλως 
vrapéw: καθ᾽ o σημαίνομενον TavTov εστιν ovola Kal υποσ- 
tacts.1 The fact that ὑποστασις and οὐσία have ὑπαρξις in 
common, no doubt explains why they have been so often 
identified; (6) INDIVIDUAL AND EMPHATIC EXISTENCE; 
Ilote δὲ τὴν καθ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ ιδιοσυστατην ὑπαρξιν. Kal? o 
σημαίνομενον To ατομον δηλοῖ, τω αριθμω διαφερον, ἡγουν τον 
Πετρον και ἸΠαυλον.2 In these two definitions of ὑποστασις 
we see the common element REALITY (v7apés); and it is 
clearly under the influence of the Trinitarian problem that 
John Damascene distinguishes ὑποστασίὶς as SIMPLE REALITY 
and the Trinitarian υὑποστασις as the INDEPENDENT REALITY. 
But in both cases ὑποστασις is REALITY, and a REALITY 
in contrast to NON-REALITY. This is obvious from the 
Damascene’s notion of avumocratov. Chapter 45 of the 
Dialectica is devoted to this term (Ileps ανυποστατου). It 
also has two senses: (a) That which EXISTS in no way, 
Ilote μὲν yap το μηδαμὴηὴ μηδαμως ov σημαίνει, ἡγουν To 
ανυπαρκτον.5 Just as ὑποστασις is fundamentally ὑπαρξις so 
ανυποόστατος is rightly called ανυπαρκτος; (6) That which 
does not EXIST IN ITSELF but in another, as an accident, 
Ilore δὲ To pn ev eavT@ εχον TO εἰναί, αλλ εν ετερὼω EYOV THY 
υπαρξιν, ηγοὺν To συμβεβηκος.Ζ But possibly the Damascene 
explains the second kind of ανυποστατον with even greater 
clarity in Dialectica, c. 29, where he says that it lacks its 
proper EXISTENCE, <Aeyerat παλὶν ανυποστατον καὶ TO 


1 Migne, P. G., 94, 612 B. 3 Migne, P. G., 94, 617 A. 
2 [bid. 4 Ibid. 


46 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


συμβεβηκος, διοτι το συμβεβηκος ove exer ἰδιαν υπαρξιν, αλλ᾽ 
εν Tn ουσια udeotnxev.1 Again we find that ανυποστατος is 
defined in terms of NON-EXISTENCE, either no EXISTENCE at 
all, or an imperfect EXISTENCE. We conclude by saying 
that υποστασις, for John Damascene and for the Greek 
Fathers as a whole (since his theology is a “mosaic of 
citations”* from the best ecclesiastical literature in Greek), 
means an EMPHASIS of EXISTENCE (REALITY) in contrast to 
NON-EXISTENCE (UNREALITY). 

The Damascene’s commentary on Heb. xi, 1 is this short 
but comprehensive statement which unites the two parts of 
our text: Il:o7vs is impossible to one who is not more fully 
convinced about invisible things than he is regarding those 
that are visible: Av yap μη τις των ορωμενων σαφεστερον περι 
των aopaTwy πεπληροφορηται, πίστις εἰναι ov Svvata.* This 
exegesis with its contrast of opwyevwv and aopatwy seems to 
apply not only to ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων, but it applies also 
to ελπιζομενων vrroctacis. In fact, it unites the two parts of 
the verse. This we gather from the Damascene’s idea of 
υποστασις. aS derived above, and from the contrast which he 
draws between the certainty regarding visible and that 
regarding invisible things. The contrast is between the 
certainty about visible things and the greater certainty re- 
garding invisible things. But we ask, what is the object of 
the certainty in both cases? Obviously, it is the EXISTENCE 
of things visible and invisible. And more strictly the con- 
trast is between the certainty about the EXISTENCE of things 
visible and the certainty of the EXISTENCE of things invisible. 
On the one hand, the EXISTENCE of visible things is made 
certain by the organs of visual perception, and on the other 
hand, the EXISTENCE of invisible things is made certain by 
πίστις, which causes “ things hoped for” (included in things 


1Migne, P. G., 94, 589 Ο. 
2 Harnack, Dogmengesch. (English Translation, IV, 265, ft. n. 1). 
3 Migne, P. G., 95, 980 C. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 47 


unseen) REALLY to EXIST for the soul. In a word, πίστις is 
an incontestable proof of ‘‘ unseen things,” because through 
υποστασις they are made REAL (by spiritual PERCEPTION ) to 
the soul. 


Summary of the Greek Patristie Laterature 


The results of our investigation of the Greek Patristic 
interpretation of eAmifowevwy ὑποστασις May now be sum- 
marily noted: 

1. In the oldest Patristic literature, that preceding the 
technical use of ὑποστασις aS PERSON, the term meant either 
EXISTENCE and REALITY in contrast to NON-EXISTENCE and 
UNREALITY, or something connected with POSSESSION: 
Letter to Diognetus, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Clement of 
Alexandria. 

2. During the period when ὑποστασις became the technical 
word for PERSON, and afterwards, (a) the older meaning of 
υποστασις is observable in literature not dealing with the 
Trinitarian and Christological controversies: Eusebius, Cyril 
of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, and 
John Damascene; (6) and even in the process by which 
υποστασις was selected to designate “ person,” the older sense 
of the term controls the development to the extent of identify- 
ing ὑποστασις with υὑπαρξις and with To ov, and of contrasting 
vrootacis with ἀνυπόστατον: Origen, Dionysius of Alex- 
andria, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Gregory of 
Nyssa, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus Martyr, Cyril of 
Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene. 

8. In both periods υποστασις meant GUARANTEE, TITLE- 
DEEDS, ANTICIPATION and REPRESENTATION OF A FUTURE 
REALITY, when the term was used in connection with things 
of the future: Tatian, Athanagoras, Papyri, Clement of 
Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of 
Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene. 

4, We were able to find only one doubtful exception to 


48 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


this common Greek Patristic notion of υποστασις, viz., that 
of Theodore of Mopsuestia who probably used it in the sense 
of CONFIDENCE. 

5. Ἐλπιζομενων υποστασις in Heb. xi, 1 expresses that 
fundamental characteristic of πίστις whereby “ things hoped 
for” are made REAL by REPRESENTATION, or by ANTICIPA- 
TION OF A FUTURE REALITY. Hence, Faith is the SPIRIT- 
UALLY VISIBLE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR. This is 
substantially the Greek Patristic exegesis of our text: 
Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, 
Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and John Damascene. 

With the possibility of one exception (Theodore of Mop- 
suestia), the practical unanimity among the Greeks in the 
exegesis of our text is striking, especially when we consider 
the hopeless confusion of the modern interpretation of Heb. 
xi, 1. In every exegesis of this verse the interpretation 
hinges on the term vzrootacis. The Greeks, “*who would 
have the most lively sense of the requirements of the lan- 
guage,”! employed this pivotal term, as we have abundantly 
shown, according to the current meaning, viz., as REALITY IN 
CONTRAST TO NON-REALITY, and in things of the future 
(which include “ things hoped for”), as the GUARANTEE FOR 
THE FUTURE REALITY OF THINGS IN QUESTION, or ANTICIPA- 
TION OF FUTURE REALITY. 


2. In THE LATIN FATHERS 


The Latin Patristic exegesis of edmifouevwy υποστασις 
while meager is, nevertheless, in agreement with the Greek 
Patristic interpretation. 

TERTULLIAN in De Cultu Feminarum, II, 2, uses the ex- 
pression “ tota fidei substantia.””» We are not sure that the 
author had Heb. xi, 1 in mind here. Yet the fact that this 
is not only the first instance in the Latin Patristic literature 
where fides is qualified by substantia, but also the example 


1 Lightfoot, Hpist. to the Phil., 184. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 49 


on whose authority a later interpretation of “rerum speran- 
darum substantia” (FIRMA EXPECTATIO!) is based, de- 
mands that we consider this passage. 

In this chapter, Tertullian elucidates the general theme 
of book II, viz., that modesty is to be preserved not only in 
its essence, but also in its accessories. ‘The reason for such 
conduct is then noted, viz., Christian women, though secure 
themselves, ought through motives of charity to abstain 
from such studied grace as leads othersintosin. He says that 
they should walk so holily and with the entire substantia 
fidei, as to be secure in their conscience, hoping that mod- 
esty remain in them, yet not presuming: Debemus quidem 
ita sancte et tota fidet substantia incedere, ut confessae et 
securae simus de conscientia nostra optantes perseverare id 
in nobis, non tamen praesumentes.? It is difficult to say 
what Tertullian understood by substantia in this passage. 
But the following considerations may lead us to an approxi- 
mate conclusion : 

1. The more general meaning of substantia in the Latin 
world is PossESSION. ‘Thus Petavius says of substantia in 
Jeremias, IX, 10, “ Ita LX-X qui ὑπαρξις hic habent, eaque vox 
substantiam, id est POSSESSIONEM significat. Hoc enim 
sensu saepe in Latinis Biblis substantia ponitur.” ® 

2. As a jurist and as a theologian, it is probable that Ter- 
tullian used substantia in our passage in the sense of POSSES- 
sion. For speaking of the introduction into theology of 
the legal terminology — substantia and persona — by Ter- 
tullian, Harnack has well said: “Substance . . . is in the 
language of the jurists not anything personal, but rather 
corresponds to ‘ property’ in the sense of POSSESSION, or to 
essence as distinguished from the manifestation or status.” + 


1 Hugo Grotius, Critici Sacri, VII, Part Il, p. 1181. 

2 Migne, P. L., I, 1482 A. 

8 De Trinitate, IV, III, Il, 171 (De Theolog. Dogmat.). 
4 Op. cit., IV, 144 sq. 


50 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


3. That POSSESSION is a very common meaning of sub- 
stantia in the writings of Tertullian is shown by the usage of 
the word in non-Trinitarian contexts. Thus in Apolog., 
XXXIX, Tertullian contrasts the brotherly spirit of the 
Christians, who give freely of their wealth for religious pur- 
poses, with Pagan rivalry over money matters. He says, 
“We are considered to have no claim to the title of Brother- 
hood because the family possessions (substantia familiaris),+ 
which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fra- 
ternal bonds among us.” Here substantia unmistakably means 
POSSESSIONS. Hence, we conclude that Tertullian used 
“tota fidei substantia” in the sense of ENTIRE POSSESSION 
OF FAITH. ‘This interpretation harmonizes with the context. 
For Tertullian seems to explain the phrase, “ tota fidei sub- 
stantia” by its effects: (a) “ut confessae et securae simus 
de conscientia nostra”; (6) “optantes perseverare id in 
nobis, non tamen praesumentes.” ‘Tota fidei substantia,” 
as the cause that makes Christian women “confident and 
secure in their conscience,” “desiring without presuming to 
persevere in the virtue,” may well be explained as a POSSES- 
SION of FAITH. 

AMBROSE quotes Heb. xi, 1, when speaking of substantia 
in the parable of the prodigal son, which he employs to 
refute the rigorist teaching of the Novatians. Heretics are 
likened to prodigals that have gone far away from their 
home to wander in strange lands. Then our author com- 
ments thus on “he wasted his substantia”: “ Rightly, for 
whose faith halts in bringing forth good works does con- 
sume it, since FAITH OF THINGS HOPED FOR is a SUBSTANTIA. 
SUBSTANTIA can here only mean “fortune,” a “ possession.” 
Then he adds a further explanation: faith is the ARGUMEN- 
TUM OF THINGS NOT SEEN. Ambrose’s,text follows: Et 
consumpsit, inquit, SUBSTANTIAM suam. Merito consumpsit 
eam, cuius fides in operibus claudicabat: FIDES ENIM EORUM 


1 Oehler, I, 262. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 51 


QUAE SPERANTUR SUBSTANTIA EST, RERUM ARGUMENTUM 
NON APPARENTIUM.! This “argumentum” can have the 
ordinary meaning “contents, materia,’ or the secondary 
meaning “evidence of a fact.” “Contents” seems to be 
preferred here, as harmonizing best with “ possession.” ‘Then 
Ambrose goes on to explain our text: Et bona substantia 
FIDES, in qua spei est nostrae patrimonium.? Here “sub- 
stantia” is evidently again synonymous with “ possession,” 
it being indifferent whether “ patrimonium” has its general 
meaning “ fortune,’ or its original meaning “ inheritance — 
inherited fortune.” In “faith” we have the “fortune,” the 
« possession” of that for which we hope. Hence, “ substantia,” 
in so far as it is a qualification of Fides in Heb. xi, 1, is that 
which makes the contents of OUR HOPE a “possession,” a 
“fortune” to us. This exegesis resembles the Greek, in 
which πίστις is the presentation or anticipation (here antici- 
pated possession) of a future reality. 

It is AUGUSTINE who says in his Hnchiridion, c. 8, that 
Heb. xi, 1 is the standard definition of FAITH in the estimation 
of many Fathers: In epistola quippe ad Hebraeos, qua teste 
usi sunt illustres Catholicae Regulae defensores, fides esse 
dicta est Convictio rerum quae non videntur.? The omission 
of ελπιζομενων υποστασις in his citation of the text is striking, 
and in this we see an example of Augustine’s general tend- 
ency to omit the first part of the verse and to emphasize 
the second. And even when our author quotes the first part, 
he cites a strangely variant text: SPERANTIUM SUBSTANTIA. 
Thus in De Pecat. Meritis et Remiss. II, c. 31, 50,4 
Augustine quotes SPERANTIUM SUBSTANTIA and understands 
it in the sense of FORTITUDO SPERANTIUM. What is the 
meaning of “fortitudo” here? In this chapter Augustine 


1 Migne, P. L., 16, 521 B. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Migne, P. L., 40, 235. 

4 Urba et Zycha, Vienna Ed., Vol. LX, 120, 20. 


52 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


explains why it is that death itself along with sin is not 
abolished in baptism. The reason he gives is that the “ for- 
titudo” of Faith would be diminished: Sed si hoc fecisset, 
carni quaedam felicitas adderetur, minueretur autem fidei 
fortitudo.1 For men have such a fear of death, that they 
would believe in Christ for nothing else than to be immune 
from dying. This would make Faith only a source of sen- 
sual pleasure (delicatius crederetur in Christum).? In the 
light of the context it becomes clear how fortitudo, in con- 
trast to sensual pleasure, is to be explained : it has its ordinary 
meaning — courage, courageous energy, bravery (not simple 
firmness). - This again elucidates Augustine’s idea of swb- 
stantia. He evidently takes it as a derivative of substo, “to 
stand firm,” “to hold out,” and substantia is the power to 
“hold out.” Hence, we see that in this passage Augustine 
understands by SPERANTIUM SUBSTANTIA the power to stand 
firm for those Hoprne. This new exegesis of our text de- 
pends largely on the variant reading. 

The Greek Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 is substantially 
found in JEROME’Ss interpretation of our text. Jerome gives 
it in his Comment. in Epist. ad Galatas, Lib. III, ο. 5, in 
connection with the list of the ‘fruits of the spirit” (Gal. 
v, 22, 23). In this list “spes” is omitted. But this omis- 
sion need not be wondered at, says Jerome, since “spes” 
is contained in fides: Nec mirum si spes in hoc catalogo 
non referatur; cum in fide sit quod speratur; et ita eam 
Apostolus ad Hebraeos scribens definiat: Est autem fides 
sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum necdum appa- 
rentium.? ‘Then Jerome explains that Faith by way of pos- 
session appropriates these things of the future (“things 
hoped for”): Siquidem id quod speramus esse venturum, et 
necdum est in praesenti, fide possidemus, sperantes nos tenere 
quod credimus.* Obviously, “substantia” is here used to 


1 Urba et Zycha, Vienna Ed., Vol. LX, 120, 20. 
2 Ibid. 3 Migne, P. L., 26, 448 C. 4 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 53 


signify the MANNER IN WHICH THINGS HOPED FOR, THOUGH 
OF THE FUTURE, ARE POSSESSED NOW THROUGH FAITH. 
This manner of POSSESSING FUTURE THINGS IN THE PRES- 
ENT has been expressed in similar language by the Greeks, 
as the anticipation of a future reality. Here we have it 
expressed even more plastically, as the “anticipating posses- 
session” (fide possidemus) of a future reality. 

At first sight, from the Latin Patristic use of substantia, it 
might appear that the Latins had lost the clear understand- 
ing of the original Greek notion of Hypostasis. But that 
later on they understood the Greek notion of the term is 
sufficiently clear from Rurrnus, H. H., I, 29. Here our 
author in narrating the history of the Council of Alex- 
andria (862) adds an interesting note about Hypostasis. 
He says that the Council insisted on distinguishing between 
substantia and subsistentia, as the Greeks distinguished be- 
tween the ovova and ὑποστασις. Substantia was to be under- 
stood synonymously with natura, and subsistentia with per- 
sona. Especially on account of the Sabellian heresy, they 
confessed “tres subsistentes personas,’ to forestall any sus- 
picion that the Council intended to countenance that heresy 
which understood a Trinity only im name (in nominibus tan- 
tum), and not in REALITY (non in rebus): Ideoque propter 
Sabelli haeresim tres esse subsistentias confidendas, quod 
quasi tres subsistentes personas significare videretur ne sus- 
picionem daremus, tanquam illius fidei sectatores, quae 
Trinitatem in nominibus tantum, et non in rebus ac subsisten- 
tiis confitetur.1_ Rufinus here witnesses to the Latin under- 
standing of ὑποστασις aS meaning REALITY (in rebus) in 
contrast to the Sabellian notion of the Persons as ανυπο- 
στατα (in nominibus tantum). That Ambrose and Augus- 
tine gave an exegesis of our text, in which Hypostasis was 
not understood in the Greek sense, may be accounted for by 
the fact that they did not go further than the Latin meaning 

1 Migne, P. L., 21, 500 A. 


54 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


of substantia (the Latin transliteration of the Greek υπο- 
στασις). Besides, for Augustine a strange Latin variant 
reading was misleading. It is remarkable, however, that in 
spite of the confusion concerning the literal meaning of 
υποστασις, they have essentially the same interpretation for 
the function of fides (avo7is), — possession or anticipated 
possession of a future reality. 

BoETIUS, as the “founder of medieval scholasticism,” ἢ 
just in this that he translated the Greek philosophical ter- 
minology into Latin, is of interest for his translation of the 
term ὑπόστασις, and for the subsequent Middle Age exegesis 
of Heb. xi, 1. In Lnber de Persona et Duabus Naturis, c. 3, 
Boetius gives the following history of viocraois and its 
translation into Latin: 

1. Both the ancient Latin (by the term persona) and the 
Greek (by the term mpoow7a) terminology for PERSON in 
the tragedies and comedies signified “ mask,’? by means 
of which PERSONS were represented. Boetius thus derives 
“persona” from “ personando,” and προσωπα from προς and 
ὦπα. In a word, “Personae” and προσωπα were 
“masks” put “over the eyes” to hide the face of the actor 
when he proposed to represent some other individual: Sed 
quoniam, personis inductis, histriones, individuos homines, 
quorum intererat, in tragoedia vel comoedia ut dictum est, 
representabant : id est, Hecubam, vel Medeam, vel Simonem, 
vel Chrementum, idcirco ceteros quoque homines, quorum 


1 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 632. 

2 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium Primum, c. 14, protests against 
the application of ‘‘ persona’’ to Christ in the sense of fictitious existence 
common to the ancient tragedy and comedy: Sed cum personam saepius 
nominamus, et dicimus quod Deus per personam homo factus sit, vehementer 
verendum est ne hoc dicere videamur quod Deus verbum sola imitatione 
actionis, quae sunt nostra, susceperit, et quidquid illud est conversationis 
humanae, quasi adumbratus, non quasi verus homo fecerit ; sicut in theatris 
fieri solet, ubi unus plures effingit repente personas, quarum ipse nulla est. 
(Migne, P. L., 50, 657.) 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT δῦ 


certa pro sui forma esset agnitio, et Latini personam, et 
Graeci προσωπον nuncupaverunt.? 

2. To express the individual subsistence of a rational 
nature, the Greeks used a far more expréssive term than 
προσωπον. They used υποστασις, whereas the Latins, to 
express the same idea, by reason of the poverty of their 
tongue, continued to use the term “ persona”: Longe vero 
illi signatius naturae rationalis individuam subsistentiam uo o- 
oTacews nomine vocaverunt; nos vero, per inopiam signifi- 
cantium vocum, translatitiam retinuimus nuncupationem, 
eamque quam illi vrocracw dicunt, personam vocantes.? 
Then Boetius quotes a Greek passage to confirm his view: 
At ovovat ev μεν tors καθ᾽ odXov evar δυνανταῖ, ev Se τοις κατα 
μερος povors υφιστανται.ὃ That is, essences can be in uni- 
versals, but they can exist in reality only in the particular. 
Hence, the Greeks designate by the term vzrocracis only 
those subsistences that existed particularly: Quodcirco 
cum ipsae subsistentiae in universalibus quidem sint, in 
particularibus vero capiant substantiam, iure subsistentias 
‘particulariter substantes vzocracis appelaverunt.4 Here 
we see that the basic idea of ὑποστασις is the REALLY 
EXISTING THING. For the contrast is precisely between the 
particular and the universal, 2.e., the REALLY EXISTING THING 
and the idea of the thing which is gathered from the par- 
ticular, as Boetius says, Intellectus enim universalium rerum 
ex particularibus sumptus est.® 

3. Boetius notes further: There is a difference between 
“‘subsistentia ” and “substantia.” ‘Subsistentia” (ουσιωσις 
or ovo.wo Par) does not need accidents to be capable of existence, 
whereas, the “substantia” (υποστασις or υφιστασθαι) serves 
as a subject for accidents, so that it can come into existence: 
Subsistit enim, quod ipsum accidentibus, ut possit esse, non 


1 Migne, P. L., 64, 1348. 4 Migne, P. L., 64, 1844 B. 


2 Migne, P. L., 64, 1344 A. 5 Ibid. 
3 Ibid. 


56 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


indiget; swbstat autem id quod aliis accidentibus subiectum 
quoddam, ut esse valeant, subministrat; sub illis enim stat, 
dum subiectum accidentibus.! Substantia or ὑποστασις is the 
REALITY underlying the accidents. Then follow examples of 
both “subsistentia” and “substantia”: Itaque genera vel 
species subsistunt tantwm, neque enim accidentia generibus 
speciebusve contingunt. Jndividua vero, non modo sub- 
sistunt, verum etiam substant.2, In a word, “subsistentia” is 
a manner of existence, as the genus or species “man,” which 
can be predicated of the universality of mankind, whereas 
“substantia” or ὑποστασις is the REALITY which can be 
predicated only of some particular man determined by the 
accidents of specific difference. Here again we see that 
υποστασίις means fundamentally REALITY. 

4, Boetius then sums up the terminology in the Greek 
and Latin equivalents, in the words of Marcus Tullius: 
Essentiam quidem ovovav; subsistentiam vero ουσίωσιν; sub- 
stantlam ὑπόστασιν; personam προσώπον, appellans.? Boetius 
then applies these terms to man and to God: (a) 170 man: 
Est ovova quidem atque essentia, guoniam est; ουσιωσίς vero 
atque subsistentia, guoniam in nullo subiecto est; ὑποστασις 
vero atque substantia, guoniam subest ceteris, quae subsistentiae 
non sunt, td est ovotwmoers.* In a word, Hypostasis can be 
applied to man only in so far as he exists in fact under 
accidents which of themselves do not exist independently, but 
in aman asa subject. That is, man is an ὑποστασις in this 
that he is a particular man, as, e.g., St. Paul. (6) To God: 
Deus quoque et ovova est et essentia; est enim, et maxime ipse 
est, a quo omnium esse proficiscitur. Est ουσιωσις, id est sub- 
sistentia; swbsistit enim nullo indigens, et υφιστασθαι, substat 
enim.> That is, vroctacis may be predicated of God in so far 
as He exists independently and supports in real eaistence all 
existing things. He is the REALITY PAR EXCELLENCE. 


1 Migne, P. L., 64, 1344 B. 3 Ibid. 
2 Migne, P. L., 64, 1844 C. 4 Migne, P. L., 64, 1845 A. 5 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 57 


Hence, we conclude that the meaning of ὑποστασις for 
Boetius was fundamentally EXISTING REALITY. This is 
clear: 

(1) From his historical note about the ancient under- 
standing of “personae” and “ pocw7a,” as “masks” repre- 
senting REALITIES; 

(2) From the Greek terminology — υποστασίς, to express 
individual subsistence, which the Latins by poverty of 
vocabulary signified by ‘ persona ”’; 

(3) From the difference between “ subsistentia ” and “ sub- 
stantia ’”— the former existing in universals without accidents, 
as “genus” or “species,’'*and the latter supporting the 
accidents in some particular and really extant being, as St. 
Paul. 

(4) From the fact that ὑποστασις can be predicated: (a) of 
man, in so far as some particular and really existing man is 
extant; and (δ) of God, in so far as He exists independently, 
and supports in real eaistence all extant things. 


Summary of the Latin Patristic Literature 


The Latin Patristic literature dealing with υποστασις 
presents, at first sight, a rather remarkable picture, if com- 
pared with the Greek. 

1. In Tertullian we have substantia = possession with the — 
moral assurance or guarantee of something. 

2. In Ambrose, substantia = simply possession. 

3. Augustine has an entirely different text for Heb. xi, 1, 
and his substantia = fortitudo = power to hold out, or to 
stand firm. 

4, For Jerome, the substantia of fides expresses anticipated 
possession. 

5. For Rufinus, substantia means the reality in contrast to 
non-reality. 

6. For Boetius, it is the emphasis of the existing reality. 


58 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


These various meanings for ὑποστασις seem to be confused; 
and yet there is unity. With the exception of the exegesis 
of Augustine, the entire exegesis is grouped around the two 
terms, possession and reality. But these are essentially 
identical, since the possession is only a qualified reality, a 
reality of which it is predicated that it is possessed, yet it is 
a reality. 

On the other hand, ὑποστασις as reality is the unanimous 
exegesis of the Greek Patristic writers. Hence, as far as 
the interpretation of Heb. xi, 1 is concerned, the Greek and 
the Latin Patristic literatures are in complete harmony. 
However, in early Latin writings there seems to be confusion 
regarding the original meaning of υποστασις. The “ substan- 
tia”’ of the Latins could never fully express what vzroctacis 
signified to the Greeks; and, furthermore, the Latin idea of 
“substantia” (possession) is only an amplification of the 
original sense of vrrocracis, but not the original notion itself. 


Recapitulation 


Having completed and summarized the RESULTS of the 
Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, we are now prepared to 
estimate their value. The principal difficulties of the verse 
have always centered on the meaning of υποστασις. Accord- 
ingly, we have studied the Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 in 
the light of the current Greek notion of this pivotal term. 
The RESULTS obtained justify the minute and painstaking 
investigation. For we have found a unanimity and clarity in 
the Greek and Latin exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, based on the 
current meaning of vzoctacis, which is in striking contrast 
to the variety and vagueness of the modern exegesis, based on 
the lexical notion of vrocracis. It is another proof of the 
value of historical and literary investigation of Scriptural 
texts. With the possible exception of Theodore of Mop- 
suestia and Augustine (who used a strangely variant Latin 
text), the Greeks and the Latins in the light of the most 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 59 


ancient Christian notion of ὑποστασις (as fundamentally 
REALITY) unanimously interpreted eAmiGopevmy υποστασις 
either as the REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, or (by reason of 
the fact that “hoped-for things” refer to the future) as the 
GUARANTEE FOR THE REALITY OF THINGS HOPED FOR, the 
ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE REALITY, or the ANTICIPATED 
POSSESSION OF THINGS HOPED FOR. 

Ελπιζομενων υὑποστασις, then, is an expression used in 
Heb. xi, 1, to describe the manner in which “things hoped 
for’ become REAL to the believer through FAITH. It is best 
expressed in these words: FAITH MAKES REAL, BY SPIRITUAL 
REPRESENTATION, THINGS HOPED FOR, or in view of the fact 
that “ hoped-for things” are matters of the future, this more 
plastic expression has been used: FAITH IS THE ANTICIPATION 
OF THE REALITY OF FUTURE THINGS. 

The second part of our text, ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων, has 
never presented much difficulty. It means THE PROOF 
WHICH CANNOT BE QUESTIONED OF THINGS UNSEEN. It is 
explained by the Patristic interpretation of the first part of 
the verse, 2.e., the reason why FAITH IS AN INCONTESTABLE 
PROOF OF THINGS UNSEEN is the fact that by ελπιεζομενων 
vrootacts faith MAKES THINGS HOPED FOR SO REAL TO THE 
BELIEVER, BY SPIRITUAL REPRESENTATION, that it consti- 
tutes the INCONTESTABLE PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF 
THINGS UNSEEN. 

The investigation into the Patristic interpretation of 
Heb. xi, 1, in the light of the most ancient Christian notion 
of υποστασις, is valuable not only as the most important 
stage in the exegesis of our text, but also as the closest link 
to the literary milieu in which Heb. xi, 1 was written; and, 
as such, it establishes a PROBABILITY that THIS WAS ALSO 
THE MEANING OF THE AUTHOR. 

It will be interesting to see if in the next period, the 
Middle Ages, the Patristic exegesis of ελπιζομενων υὑποστασις 
is maintained, or whether it gives way to new interpretations. 


60 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


8. IN THE EXEGESIS OF THE MIDDLE AGES 


In view of the practically unanimous Patristic under- 
standing of ὑποστασις aS REALITY, it should not surprise us 
to find it repeated in the exegesis of our text during the 
Middle Ages. At any rate, if new interpretations arise, it 
will be interesting to notice how they explain themselves 
historically. The Patristic exegesis, with its roots in the 
κοινη διαλεκτος, is historically in touch with the literary 
milieu of Heb. xi, 1. Can new interpretations stand under 
this historico-literary test ? 

WALAFRIED STRABO (849) in his Glossa Ordinaria on 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, considers Heb. xi, 1 to be a 
description of Faith: Hic est laus et commendatio fidei, cuius 
descriptionem ponit.1 For Strabo, three things are here 
predicated of fides, viz., (a) Quid efficiat in nobis; (6) Quod 
fundamentum est omnium bonorum, and (6) Et quod et de 
non apparentibus est.? 

What is of immediate interest to us is the first and the 
second, because they are the exegesis of “substantia spe- 
randarum rerum.” Strabo makes the interesting remark that 
even in the Epistle to the Romans, fides is called “ substantia 
sperandarum rerum.”® Then he continues: Id est, causa 
quae res sperandas faciet quandoque subsistere in nobis; quod 
est dicere : faciet nos consequi futura bona. Et proprie dicitur 
fides substantia, quia sperandis substat, et faciet ea esse in 
credentibus in alia vita.t In a word, Fides is “substantia 
sperandarum rerum,” because it makes “things hoped for” 
REAL to the believers; it gives “ things hoped for” REALITY 
of existence. In this exegesis of “substantia sperandarum 
rerum” we can recognize the current Greek exegesis of 
our text, viz., the anticipated reality of “things hoped for,” 
although the derivation of substantia from substare shows a 
lack of understanding of the literal meaning of υποστασις. 


1 Migne, P. L., 114, 668 B. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 61 


Secondly, faith is the foundation of all good things, which 
no one can change, and without which there can be no 
building; or, faith makes “things hoped for” to ezzst in 
the heart of the believer: Et est fundamentum omnium 
bonorum quod nemo mutare potest, et sine quo non est bona 
aedificatio: vel, speranda iam facit esse in corde credentis.+ 
That is, Faith as the foundation of all good things is 
equated by Faith as the cause which makes “things hoped 
for” to exist in the heart of the believer. ‘This is a note- 
worthy equation, because it may explain the exegesis of 
those who like Origen spoke of “ substantia sperandarum ” as 
the “ fundamentum iustitiae.” Substantia, as a fundamentum, 
must be considered a derived sense of substantia (υποστασις) 
which means primarily REALITY. For it is a very signifi- 
cant fact that those who interpret substantia (υποστασις) in 
our text as fundamentum usually do so in the light of the 
doctrine of justification. So Origen? probably explained it, 
and so Strabo in what follows: Fides est causa sperandarum, 
quia causa tiustitiae per quam sunt speranda.? Hence, “ swb- 
stantia” means ‘*fundamentum” only by adaptation, in the 
light of the doctrine of justification, or, at most, it was in 
view of the fact that “substantia” (υποστασις) caused 
“things hoped for” to exist in the soul that the derived 
sense of Fides as the fundamentum iustitiae arose. 

We conclude that StrRABO understood Fides to be “ sub- 
stantia sperandarum rerum” in the sense that Fides causes 
“THINGS HOPED FOR ” to EXIST IN REALITY in the soul of 
the believer. In the Greek Patristic literature we find 
πίστις as the factor presenting future realities, whereas, we 
have here Faith, as the factor directly producing (faciet) 
these realities. 

HRABANUS (856), in his treatise, Jn Epist. ad Hebr., inter- 
prets our text in the very words of John Chrysostom with 


1 Migne, P. L., 114, 668 C. 3 Migne, P. L., 114, 663 C. 
2 Migne, P. G., 14, 980 B. 


62 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


the exception that he uses ‘‘scientia” where the other has 
ovota. ‘The following reason is given for the use of sub- 
stantia in Heb. xi, 1: as “things hoped for” are considered 
devoid of substantia (sine substantia), Faith gives them sub- 
stantia ; nay more, it does not merely give it to them — it is 
the scientia of them: Quoniam ea quae sunt in spe, sine 
substantia esse putantur, fides eis tribuit substantiam ; 
magis autem non eis tribuit, sed ipsa est scientia eorum.! 
Then, in the words of Chrysostom, follows the example of 
the resurrection of the body at the last day, which Faith 
makes to subsist in the soul.2 It is evident from the con- 
trast, “sine substantia” and “ scientia,” that “scientia” 
here means the PERCEPTION OF THE REALITY OF THINGS 
HOPED FOR. The old Patristic idea of Faith, as a super- 
natural eye by which we see things in their REALITY, is 
easily recognized here. For “sine substantia,” as a charac- 
teristic of the object of hope, points to a contrast between 
the natural eye, that cannot see the REALITY OF THINGS 
HOPED FOR, and Faith, that gives the “scientia” of the 
object of Faith in the same way as our natural eye gives the 
“scientia”’ (the perception) of the REALITY OF THINGS SEEN. 
Faith REPRESENTS things as REALLY EXISTING, although 
they may seem to be ‘‘sine substantia” (without reality). 
The Greek Patristic exegesis of our text is strikingly 
given by OECUMENIUS (X century) in Comm. in Epist. ad 
Hebr. This author not only insists that υποστασις means 
REALITY IN CONTRAST TO UNREALITY, but he also points 
out how “things hoped for” are made REAL, viz., BY MAK- 
ING THEM TO BE PRESENT. First of all, Oecumenius says 
that πίστις is called the ovova and υὑποστασις of “things 
hoped for”: Isortis ἐστιν αὐτὴ ἡ ὑποστασις Kat οὐσία των 
ελπιζομενων ὃ πραγματων. ‘Then he goes on to explain that 


1 Migne, P. L., 112, 788 B. 2 Ibid. 3 Migne, P. G., 119, 401 D. 
4 It is of interest to notice that πραγματων is here connected with ελπεζομε- 
νων, not (as in the more common text) with βλεπομενων. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 63 


“things of hope” are without REALITY (avvroctata), so long 
as they are NOT PRESENT (μη 7rapovta); but πίστις becomes 
both the ovova and the υποστασις of such things BY MAKING 
THEM TO EXIST (eval) AND TO BE PRESENT: Ἐπειδὴ yap 
TA εν EATLOLY ανυποστατα EOTLY, WS TEWS μὴ TAPOVTA, ἡ πίστις 
ουσια TIS αὑτῶν καὶ ἢ ὕποστασις YLVETAL, ELVAL αὑτὰ και 
Tapewal τρόπον τινὰ παρασκευαζουσα, δια του πιστεύειν 
εἰναι.1} Πίστις is not only the reality of things hoped for, 
but by υὑποστασις it also makes them REAL BY MAKING 
THEM PRESENT. In a word, we find here again the remark- 
able exegetical formula of the Greek Patristic literature: 
Πίστις = REALITY, or the ANTICIPATED REALITY OF THINGS 
HOPED FOR THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OF THESE THINGS 
TO THE SOUL. 

In the briefest formula THEOPHYLACT (c. 1100) sums up 
the Greek Patristic exegesis of our text in FHzpositio in 
Epist. ad Hebr. c. XI: Λοιπὸν vrroypaderat vay την πίστιν, 
και φησιν OTL OVTLWOLS ETTL TOV μήπω οντῶν καὶ υὕποστασις 
τῶν μη υφεστωτων.Σ2 Faith is the factor that makes those 
things REAL (ουσίιωσις 8) that do not yet exist (των μηπὼω 
οντων). But πίστις not only takes “things hoped for” out 
of the class of mere imaginary figments of the mind (Tov 
unre οντων) by giving them REALITY (ovotwors), but in 
what follows Theophylact shows EMPHATICALLY that the 
ANTICIPATED REALITY of things unseen EXISTS (υποστασις 
Tov μη υφεστωτων). For vroctacis and υφεστωτων are both 
derived from υφίσταναι = EMPHATIC FORM OF eva, and in 
our text πίστις gives EMPHATIC EXISTENCE (υποστασις) to 
those things of hope which do NOT yet so EXIST (un υφεστω- 
tov). With this understanding of Theophylact’s interpreta- 


1 Migne, P. G., 119, 401 Ὁ. 

2 Migne, P. G., 125, 340 Ὁ. 

8 Coming from ovoiow, ‘to give REALITY,’’ the term ovewovs is the power 
that gives REALITY to things of hope which are both future and unseen by 
natural eyes. Cf. Pape. 


64 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


tion of ελπιζομενων υποστᾶσις in mind, we can see more 
clearly the aptness and force of what, since John Chrysostom, 
has become the classical example of the Greek exegesis of 
our text, viz., the resurrection of the body at the last day: 
Ovov ἡ αναστασις ovTw udectynKev, arr ἡ πίστις υφιστα αὑτὴν, 
καὶ προ οφθαλμων nu τιθησι.1 ‘The resurrection does not 
yet REALLY EXIST CONCRETELY (ovtw udeornxev), but πίστις 
makes it to SUBSIST (v¢iota) and PLACES IT BEFORE OUR 
EYES (προ οφθαλμων ημιν τιθησι) in such a manner that we 
are more fully convinced about its REALITY than we are 
about the things we see with the eyes of the body. For 
things placed before our physical eyes and perceived by 
them are undisputed REALITIES, yet even more so are things 
seen by the eyes of Faith. 

This classical example of the Greek exegesis of ελπεζομε- 
νων ὑποστασις proves to what extremes the Greeks went to 
show that υποστασις meant fundamentally REALITY. 

Hueo or St. Victor (1141) is interesting in this, that 
he shows how Fides can be “substantia rerum sperandarum”’ 
for future, present, and past objects, respectively : 

1. Fides is properly the “substantia” of future things, 
because through it we know that they are: Et ideo proprie 
Fides substantia futurorum dicitur, quia per eam scimus quod 
sunt.2, It is the same idea that Hrabanus before him ex- 
pressed in the words: Fides is the “scientia” of “ things 
hoped for” — THE PERCEPTION OF THE REALITY OF THINGS 
HOPED FOR. 

2. Fides can be called “substantia rerum sperandarum ” 
for present or past objects, because ἐξ makes the “things 
hoped for” to subsist in us: Fides etiam de praesentibus, vel 
praeteritis potest dici substantia rerum sperandarum.. . 
id est causa, quae res sperandas facit subsistere in nobis.2 This 
is a step further: Fides not only makes things REAL, but 
also PRESENT (immediately existing in us). Thus we find 


1 Migne, P. G., 125, 840 Ὁ. 2 Migne, Ρ, L., 175,629D. 8 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 65 


that Hugo of St. Victor emphasizes the traditional Greek 
interpretation of ελπεζομενων ὑποστασις, Viz., FAITH IS THAT 
WHICH MAKES “ THINGS HOPED FOR” REAL AND PRESENT. 

As a student! of Aristotle, Plato, and Boetius, GILBERT 
DE LA PORREE (7 1154) is interesting in his interpretation 
of ελπιζομενων vroctacts. In his commentary on Rom. i, 17, 
he quotes Heb. xi, 1, and interprets it in the light of the 
traditional Patristic exegesis. He says that it is a causative 
usage of Fides, when we say that by it we embrace with such 
great certitude things that we do not yet have, that they sub- 
sist in us as “had”: Huius vero fidei tam est efficax usus, ut 
ea quae nondum habemus, sed a nobis sperantur habenda, 
tanta certitudine amplectamur, ut per ipsam tanquam habita 
in nobis subsistant.2 Notice here in strong terms the Greek 
Patristic explanation of ὑποστασις, as THAT WHICH CAUSES 
“THINGS HOPED FOR” TO BE REAL BY MEANS OF POSSES- 
SION, PRESENTED OR ANTICIPATED. Here the ANTICIPATED 
POSSESSION, as the means by which these things of hope are 
made REAL to us, is emphasized (tanquam habita in nobis 
subsistant). 

The interpretation of “substantia rerum sperandarum ” in 
the Middle Ages is pointedly summarized in the splendid 
exegesis of LTHomAs or Acquin, Jn Epistolam ad He- 
braeos, c. XI, Lectio I. In this commentary, Thomas gives 
the “setting” of our text; he insists that it is a definition 
(though obscure) of Faith, and answers the question, why 
Faith can be defined in terms of spes which contains Fides. 
These points will receive due attention in the interpretation 
of our text. But here, where our immediate aim is the 
exegesis of “substantia rerum sperandarum,” it suffices 
merely to mention them. 3 


1 Schaff, A Religious Encyclopaedia, etc., art. on Gilbert de la Porrée, II, 


878. 
2 Text taken from Denifle’s Luther und Luthertum, Die Schriftausleger 


bis Luther tiber Iustitia Dei, 42. 


66 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


By way of introduction, Thomas notes that there are many 
explanations of our text,—substantia potest multipliciter 
exponi.! He summarizes them, however, under two heads: 

1. Substantia can be used in a causal sense, by which 
‘things hoped for” are made present to us through Fides — 
either (a) by way of merit, when one comes to see what he 
hopes for (since vision is the reward of Fides); or (6) by 
way of ownership, when one already has in a sense what is 
believed will happen at some future time: Uno modo causa- 
liter, et tunc habet duplicem sensum. Unum quod est sub- 
stantia, id est faciens in nobis substare res sperandas, quod 
facit duobus modis. Uno modo quasi merendo; ex hoc enim 
quod captivat et submittit intellectum suum his quae sunt 
fidei, meretur quod aliquando perveniat ad videndum hoc 
quod sperat; visio enim est merces fidei. Alio modo quast 
per suam proprietatem praesentialiter facit quod id quod cre- 
ditur futurum in re, aliquo modo iam habeatur, dummodo 
credat in Deum.? In a word, Fides as “substantia rerum 
sperandarum” makes “things hoped for” ACTUALLY AND 
REALLY TO EXIST and be present in the soul by a kind of 
“seeing” or by a kind of “ having,’ — the former being the 
result of a “‘kind of merit” and the latter being the result 
of a “kind of possession.” This explanation of our text is 
the current Greek exegesis of the same with the exception 
that some of the Greeks specified the manner of seeing the 
REALITY aS PRESENTATION,’ and the manner of possessing 
the REALITY aS ANTICIPATION, TITLE-DEEDS,* or GUARAN- 
TEE. It is also to be noted that the transformation of Fides 
into vision is strongly emphasized in both the Greek and the 
Latin Patristic ὃ writings. 

1 Opera Omnia, ΧΙ, 687. 

2 Ibid. 

8 Cf. Theodoret and John Chrysostom, pp. 42, 38, of this book. 

4 Cf. Greek Papyri and Clement of Alexandria, p. 25, of this book. 


5 We note only one representative of the Greek and one of the Latin Pa- 
tristic literature. In Stromata, II, 2, Clement of Alexandria describes the 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 67 


2. The other sense, in which “substantia rerum speranda- 
rum ” can be explained in our text is the Esszwce of “ things 
hoped for”: alio modo exponi potest substantia essentialiter, 
quasi Fides est substantia, id est essentza rerum sperandarum. 
Unde in Graeco habetur: Hypostasis rerum sperandarum.? 
Then Thomas goes on to explain his use of “essentia.” Sub- 
stantia is “ essentia” just as First Principles are “ essentia,” 
in the sense that they in a way contain everything in any 
thing. Fides is ‘“essentia” in the same sense that First 
Principles, which must be accepted by Faith, contain the 
whole substantially. This is true in all sciences; and, hence, 
if geometry were the “essence” of beatitude, then he who 
had the principles of geometry would in a certain sense have 
the “essence” of beatitude,— Ht in illis principiis quoddam- 
modo continetur tota scientia sicut conclusiones in praemissis, et 
effectus in causa. Qui ergo habet principia illius scientiae, 
habet substantiam eius, puta geometriae. Et si geometria’ 


precise way by which πιστις develops into knowledge, αὐτίκα ἡ μελετη THs 
πίστεως επιστημὴ γιγνεται θεμελιω βεβαιω επερηρεισμενη (Berl. Ed. Clem. Al., 11. 
117). That is, the exercise of Faith directly becomes Knowledge. Again, 
in Stromata, VII, 10, Clement considers the steps to perfection, and says of 
πιστις, that starting with it and being developed by it, through the grace of 
God, the knowledge respecting Him is to be acquired as far as possible — 
ἐς till it restores the pure in heart to the crowning place of rest, teaching to 
gaze upon God face to face, with knowledge and comprehension,’’ — αχρις av 
εἰς TOV κορυφαιον αποκατασήηση THS ἀναπαύσεως TOTOY τον καθαρον TH καδια προ- 
σωπον προς προσωπον επιστημονικως καὶ καταληπτικως τον θεον εποπτευειν διδα- 
ξασα (Berl. Ed. Clem. Al., III, 41). This idea that the pure in heart shall 
begin to know what they believe is throughout the whole Patristic literature 
the common expression for the way Fides passes into knowledge and vision. 

Augustine, too, in Enchiridion, c. 5, writes that when the mind has been 
imbued with the first elements of that Faith which worketh by love, it en- 
deavors by purity of life to attain unto sight, where the pure and perfect of 
heart know that unspeakable beauty, the full vision of which is supreme 
happiness, — Cum autem initio fidei, quae per dilectionem operatur, imbuta 
mens fuerit, tendit bene vivendo etiam ad speciem pervenire, ubi est sanctis 
et perfectis cordibus nota ineffabilis pulchritudo, cuius plena visio felicitas. 
(Migne, P. L., 40, 288.) 

1 Op. cit., ΧΙ, 687. 


68 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


esset essentia beatitudinis, qui haberent principia geometriae, 
haberent quoddammodo substantiam beatitudinis.! 

Yet another example is given by Thomas: just as the tree 
is contained in the seed, so “ things hoped for” are contained 
in Faith as a substantia. Undoubtedly, “substantia” is here 
used in the sense of CONTENTS, a meaning which is in this 
form entirely new in the history of the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, 
although in fact it is nothing else than an amplification of 
υποστασις = REALITY. : 

BONAVENTURE (ἱ 1274), in Sent., Lib. III, Art. I, Quaes. 
V, somewhat under the influence of Augustine, prepares the 
way for a new exegesis of ελπιζομενων vrroctacts, although 
he also repeats substantially the traditional Patristic inter- 
pretation of our text. In general he says that Faith is 
essentially a matter of the intellect and the will, in that it 
makes firm the latter and zlwmines the former. In so far 
as Faith makes the WILL FIRM, it is called “substantia,” or 
‘fundamentum,” and in so far as it ILLUMINES the INTEL- 
LECT, it is called “argumentum”: Nam ipsa Fides secundum 
essentiam suam aliquid respicit ex parte intellectus, et aliquid 
ex parte affectus. Habet enim affectum stabilire, et intellec- 
tum illuminare. Et in quantum affectum stabilit, dicitur 
“substantia,” sive “fundamentum”; in quantum autem 7n- 
tellectum tlluminat, dicitur “argumentum.’? The original 
idea of υποστασις has been forgotten here. Only the “sub- 
stantia’’ = fortitudo of Augustine has some similarities to 
it. But Bonaventure allows us to infer that some notion of 
REALITY is still in the term, in another reference to Heb. xi, 
1 where he says that Fides can be called “substantia,” in so 
far as it is the foundation of our spiritual edifice: In hac de- 
finitione Fides dicitur substantia, id est fundamentum substans 
aedificio spirituali, quod est gratia et gloria. But Faith is 
ἃ FOUNDATION in the sense that it MAKES THINGS HOPED 


1 Op. cit., X XI, 687. 3 Op. cit., VIII, 179. 
2 Opera Omnia, IV, 496. 4 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 69 


FOR TO SUBSIST through grace with as much REALITY as 
they will Exist through glory: Ipsa namquam Fides facit 
aliqualiter res sperandas in nobis subsistere per gratiam, et faciet 
tandem per gloriam. . .. Rerum sperandarum dicitur, quia 
fides per assensum facit in nobis subsistere res sperandas.} 
This shows that Bonaventure understood “ substantia ” in our 
text at least once as REALITY or PRESENTATION OF REALITY. 
And his analysis of Fides into intellectual and volitional 
elements is rather a rhetorical application than a strict notion 
of πιστις-υποστασις. 

In the interpretation of our text by ERAsmus (+ 1536), 
we meet for the first time the new meaning of “ substantia,” 
FipucIA. So he unmistakably interprets “ substantia” 
in Heb. xi, 1: Illud adiiciam, hoc loco fidem non usurpari 
proprie pro ea qua credimus credenda, sed qua spereamus, 
h.e., IPSA FIDUCIA.* Understanding “ rerum sperandarum ” 
as things of the future, and at the same time realizing that 
Faith embraces also things of the past and of the present, 
Erasmus reconciles the difficulty by saying that here Fides 
is described synecdochically: Glossema quoddam vetustum 
indicat hoc dictum synecdochen, cum fides sit et praeteri- 
torum et praesentium et futurorum.® It is also to be noted 
that Erasmus’ interpretation of ‘‘substantia” as FIDUCIA is 
determined, not by the meaning of viroctacts or “ substan- 
tia,” but by the grammatical connection of the same with 
“rerum sperandarum,” of which it is a qualification (hoc 
loco fidem non usurpari proprie pro ea qua credimus cre- 
denda, sed qua speramus, h.e., IPSA FIDUCIA ). 

Following Erasmus, LUTHER (+1546) gave still further 
impetus to the interpretation of “substantia” as FIDUCIA. 
Fortunately, we can summarize Luther’s exegesis of our 
text in a Thesis of Alia Eiusdem Argumenti cum Priore, 
Contra Satanam et Synogogam Ipsius: De Fide — Thesis 
22: FIDES VERA EST SUBSTANTIA CORDIS, id est, FIRMA 

1 Ibid. 2 Critici Sacri, VIL, Part II, p. 1101. 8 Ibid. 


70 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


ET CERTA FIDUCIA IN DEUM PROMISSOREM MISERICORDIAE 
ET AUXILI.! Luther tells us in his Comment. in Episto- 
lam S. Pauli ad Galatas, c. 5, how it was that he abandoned 
his first interpretation of υὑποστασις, aS POSSESSION or POWER, 
for the sense, TRUST IN PROMISES, which is equivalent to 
firma et certa fiducia in Deum promissorem misericordiae et 
auxiu. Here he states that for a long time he had followed 
Jerome’s interpretation of υὑποστασις, aS POSSESSION or 
POWER, especially since this was also the more general 
usage of the term in Scripture: In qua sententia et ego diu 
fui, quod observassem substantiam in sacris literis fere 
ubique pro facultatibus et possessione usurpari, maxime, 
cum ad hoc Hieronymi huius loci tenerem auctoritatem.? 
This interpretation Luther was led to abandon by Melanch- 
thon, who showed him that when “substantia” meant ῬΟΒ- 
SESSION or POWER, ὑποστασις was not the term used, but 
rather ovata, Bporos, or ὑπαρξις : Postquam Melanchthon .. . 
ostendit substantiam, quando facultatem significat, non 
υποστασιν (quo verbo Apostolus Heb. xi utitur), sed vel 
ουσιαν vel Bporov vel νυπαρξιν graece dici, mutavi senten- 
tiam.? Our author then confirms his view by the interpre- 
tation of Chrysostom, who understood υὑποστασις as SUB- 
SISTENTIA, from which Luther judged that PROMISSIO, 
PACTUM, and especially EXPECTATIO could be used with 
equal reason: Cedoque sensu meo, vroctac.v seu substan- 
tiam significare proprie SUBSISTENTIAM et substantiam, qua 
quodlibet in se subsistit, ut Chrysostomus sapit, vel etiam 
PROMISSIONEM, PACTUM, de quo non est nunc tempus latius 
disputandi, EXPECTATIONEM, quae verbi, unde descendit 
υποστασις, vis et proprietas admittit.4 It is difficult to see 
how Luther can consider PROMISSIONEM, PACTUM, and 


1 Ed. Jena, Tomus Primus Omnium Operum Lutheri, 528. 
2 Ed. Irmischer, Lutheri Opera Omnia, 29-31, III, 437. 

ὃ Ibid. 

4 Op. cit., 29-81, III, 488. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 71 


especially EXPECTATIONEM, as having about the same mean- 
ing as Chrysostom’s SUBSISTENTIAM (the emphasis of 
REALITY), or that the vis et proprietas verbi, unde descendit 
υποστασις, admits the sense of EXPECTATIO. But this isan 
important matter — how can ὑποστασις mean EXPECTATION 
most aptly from its derivation? And Luther’s “de quo 
non est nunc tempus latius disputandi” is not sufficient to 
satisfy the requirements of scientific exegesis. 

In marked contrast to Erasmus and Luther, VATABLUS 
(7 1547) follows the traditional Patristic exegesis: Fides 
is ESSENTIA in the sense that it makes things to be PRESENT: 
Rerum sperandarum ESSENTIA, demonstratio rerum quae 
conspici non possunt: 7.e., quae credit res promissas a Deo, 
nondum tamen praestitas, tam veras esse quam si iam prae- 
stitae essent, PRAESENTES et DEMONSTRATAE.! In a word, 
“substantia”? makes PRESENT “things hoped for,” and 
‘‘argumentum” makes DEMONSTRATED “things unseen.” 
We have again for the meaning of υὑποστασις the ANTICIPA- 
TION and the PRESENTATION of a FUTURE REALITY. 

CLARIUS (71555) understands vroctacis to mean FOUN- 
DATION or BASIS: Fidem esse rerum quae sperantur ὑποστα- 
ols, et tanquam BASIM et FUNDAMENTUM quo subsistant ea 
quae nondum adsunt, et tanquam PRAESENTIAM esse videan- 
tur.2, FOUNDATION is not the primary meaning of ὑποστασις. 
And the further explanation of Clarius’ usage (υποστασις 
means FOUNDATION in this that it gives “things hoped for” 
SUBSISTENCE and PRESENCE) resembles the manner in which 
υποστασις was employed by the Greeks in the sense of 
REALITY, — ANTICIPATION, REPRESENTATION, and GUARAN- 
TEE OF A FUTURE REALITY. 

SEBASTIAN CASTALIO (+1563) enumerates three inter- 
pretations of our text: ; 

1. “The substance of things hoped for” =the MATTER 
OF THINGS HOPED FOR (also Thomas of Acquin): ὑποστασις 


1 Critici Sacri, VIL, Part II, p. 1104. 2 Op. cit., p. 1116. 


72 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


est substantia, et ipsa res atque materia, ut in huius epistolae 
Ὁ. I, 81: 

2. “'The substance of things hoped for” = the PROOF OF 
‘THINGS HOPED FOR: Transferatur ὑποστασις ad alia, ut 2 
Cor. xi, 17, ev TavTn τὴ ὑποστάσει THS KavXnoews, in hac 
gloriandi materia, sive ARGUMENTUM ?; 

3. “The substance of things hoped for” =the sUBJEC- 
TION OF THINGS HOPED FOR BY WHICH ABSENT THINGS 
ARE MADE PRESENT: Ut sit ὑποστασις, cum res ὑφίσταται, 
propontur, subiicitur, et PRAESENS statuitur. Itaque, hic 
dicitur eorum quae sperantur subicitio, quod absentia nobis 
subticiat ac proponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse videantur, 
nec secus eis assentimur quam si cerneremus.® In this third 
interpretation of our text, we notice (a) that Castalio fol- 
lows the traditional Greek interpretation (Faith is that 
which makes PRESENT THINGS WHICH ARE ABSENT); (6) 
that Castalio derives the term ὑποστασις from υφίσταναι 
(EMPHASIS of evar) in contradistinction to the combination 
of ὑπο and ctornpt in the mistaken sense of a kind of under- 
lying. 

The manner in which “ things hoped for” become REAL is 
repeatedly expressed by CALVIN (7 1564) in his interpreta- 
tion of our text. In his Commentary on Habacuc, c. II, 5, 
he calls Fides a viston of hidden things and the subsistentia 
of absent things: Visio rerum abscondarum, ut etiam vocatur 
XI ad Hebr. et subsistentia rerum absentium.* If, as it 
seems, ‘‘ subsistentia ” is the equivalent of ὑποστασις, then, for 
Calvin, the meaning of the term is similar to that of the 
Greek Patristic literature,—v7rocraois is the factor that 
makes absent things PRESENT. Even more pointedly Calvin 
explains what he means by “‘subsistentia” in his exegesis of 
Heb. xi, 1, in Hom. LVII, In Ltd. Samuel, c. XVI: At 
Fides illud quo extant quae sperantur et quae demonstrat 


1 Critici Sacri, VII, Part 11, p. 1106. 3 Ibid. 
2 Ibid. 4 Calvini Opera, XLIII, 540. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 73 


quae non cernuntur.! Here ὑποστασις evidently is the factor 
whereby ‘‘things hoped for” become REAL and EXISTING 
(extant). Ὑποστασις is the PRESENTATION OF A REALITY. 

In equating υφισταται by exer To evvat CASAUBON 
(7 1614) shows a remarkably accurate understanding of the 
Greek notion of ὑποστασις as true REALITY. He also identifies 
it with the “esse revera””— the very REALITY —in contrast 
to the figments of the imagination (διανοίας αναπλασματαλ): 
Ὑποστασις dubio procul hic accipitur ut cum apud philosophos 
dicuntur ta προς tt habere ὑπόστασιν, h.e., ESSE REVERA, 
non autem τῆς nuetepas διανοίας αναπλασματα. Ὑφισταται 
pro eyes τὸ evar usurpant philosophi.2 What is valuable 
about this interpretation is the fact that the author recognizes 
the derivation of ὑποστασις from υφίσταναι, and also that he 
confirms the Greek Patristic exegesis of the term by the. 
classical, vfioratrar=eyet To evar (υφισταται pro exel TO εἰναι 
usurpant philosophi), a strong phrase for EMPHATIC EXIST- 
ENCE or VERY REALITY. 

Estrus*® (+1613) notes three interpretations of “sub- 
stantia rerum sperandarum,” according as ‘substantia” 
means FOUNDATION or PRINCIPLE, REALITY or EXISTENCE, 
and CERTITUDE, respectively : 

1. Faith can be said to be the FOUNDATION of “things 
hoped for,” in the sense that it is a BASIS and FOUNDATION 
upon which hoped-for salvation so rests, that without it 
salvation could not exist; no more than a column could 
(exist) without its BASE, or a house without its FOUNDA- 
TION,—as accidents are upheld by their substance: Quod sit 
veluti basis ac fundamentum, cui sperata salus ita innitatur, 

1 Op. cit., XXX, 157. 

2 Critict Sacri, VII, Part Il, p. 1118. 

3 Estius also observes that although many, such as Jerome, Theodoret, and 
Theophylact, consider Heb, xi, 1, a definition of Faith, yet for him it is rather 
a description of the same: Breviter respondeo, non tam definitionem quam 


descriptionem seu notationem quamdam fidei his Apostoli verbis contineri. 
(Estius, Comm. in Cap. XI, Epist. ad Hebr., 274.) 


74 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


ut absque ea haberi nequeat; quomodo columna basi, et 
domus innititur fundamento; vel etiam quomodo accidentia 
a substantia sustinentur.t We know that υποστασις in the 
sense of FOUNDATION is unusual in the Greek Patristic 
exegesis. 

2. “Substantia” is REALITY and EXISTENCE. Faith in 
this sense is said to be the υποστασις of “things hoped for” 
by metonymy, because it PRODUCES, GENERATES, and EX- 
HIBITS to us “ things hoped for,” which of themselves do not 
yet exist: Ut Fides hoc sensu dicitur eorum, quae sperantur, 
hypostasis ac substantia (nimirum per metonymiam ab 
effectu), quia, quamvis, spe pendente, nondum illa existant, 
tamen eorum existentiam in nobis quodammodo fides efficit ac 
gigmt, atque tpsa praesentia nobis exhibit.2 This is nothing 
other than the current Greek exegesis of our text: THINGS 
HOPED FOR ARE MADE REAL EITHER BY ANTICIPATION OR 
BY REPRESENTATION. 

3. Because Faith makes us as certain about “ things hoped 
for,” as if they were already present and grasped with the 
hands; nay, because Faith makes us more CERTAIN of “things 
hoped for” than if they were seen with the eyes, or demon- 
strated by reason, it happens that some interpret ὑποστασις in 
our text as CERTITUDE or CERTIFICATION: Dum videlicet 
adeo certos de iis nos facit, atque 8ὲ re tpsa iam praestita 
essent, ac manibus tenerentur; certiores vero, quam si vel 
oculis essent conspecta, vel ratione demonstrata. Quo fit, ut 
υποστασιν nonnulli certitudinem vel certificationem interpre- 
tentur.2 But here the EFFECT of υὑποστασις is described, not 
υποστασις itself. 

SUAREZ (1617), Tract. I, disp. II, sect. V, num. 7, 
repeats the secondary interpretation of Thomas of Acquin, 
viz., that Faith is called the “substance of things hoped 
for,” because by Faith we have what is contained in the 
Symbolum —the ESSENTIALS OF SALVATION SUBSTANTIALLY: 

1 Op. cit., 274. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 75 


Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum; nam in Symbolo 
continentur omnia, quae ad hanc substantiam pertinent, nam 
ibi docetur Deus, qui est objectum beatitudinis, quam 
speramus.! This interpretation of our text has nothing 
whatever to do with the original Pauline description of 
πίστις in Heb. xi, 1. 

BELLARMINE (71621), De Christo, Lib. II, c. IV, in 
discussing the terms ὑποστασις and οὐσία, not only sum- 
marizes pointedly the Greek Patristic view of ὑποστασις, as a 
modus existendi, but also shows that the New Testament 
usage of the word (thére are only five instances of the use of 
υποστασις in the New Testament; viz., Heb. i, 3; iii, 14; 
xi, 1; and 2 Cor. ix, 4; xi, 17) is constant and means 
that “foundation” or “ basis”’ which exists per se and supports 
other things in their existence: His enim locis explicatur 
nomen ὑποστασις in genere significare fundamentum seu 
basim, quae alia sustentat, et ipsa per se subsistit.2 This is 
the meaning of υποστασις in Heb. xi, 1, because Faith is the 
foundation of justice and not only exists per se, but even 
gives existence to “ things hoped for” — things which in se are 
not yet, but which through Faith seem already in some way to 
exist: Hic autem postea hoc nomen traducitur et accom- 
modatur ad Fidem, quia Fides est fundamentum justitiae, et 
non solum ipsa per se exsistit, et etiam dat subsistentiam 
rebus speratis, quae enim speramus in se non sunt, sed per 
Fidem quodammodo iam existere videntur.2 What is of interest 
in this citation of Bellarmine is not so much that he repeats 
emphatically the current Greek Patristic exegesis of our text, 
but that he regards as equivalent the two senses of “sub- 
stantia,” FUNDAMENTUM and QUAE ALIA SUSTENTAT ET 
IPSA PER SE SUBSISTIT. Ὑσποστασις in the sense of FUNDA- 
MENTUM is, as we have repeatedly noted, a derived usage, or. 
better, a popular and plastic expression of the primary 
meaning of the term. | 

1 Opera Omnia, XII, 29. 2 Opera, I, 203. 3 Op. cit., I, 204. 


76 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


For JoHN PIsScATOR (+1625), as for Estius, Heb. xi, 1 
is not a definition of Fides, but rather a description of the 
same in its effects: Id est, Fides ex se parit certam spem 
rerum a Deo promissarum adeo ut illa, quae ex Dei promis- 
sione sperantur necdum cernuntur, tam reipsa subsistere sive 
eatare et coram cern videantur.1 Again we notice that our 
author follows the Greek Patristic interpretation, emphasiz- 
ing the two typical points: (4) ANTICIPATED REALITY (iam 
reipsa subsistere); and (δὴ) PRESENTATION OF REALITY 
(extare et coram cerni videantur). 

JOHN CAPELLUS (+1625) thinks that in our text justify- 
ing and saving Faith are defined: Definit igitur hic fidem 
antonomastice dictam, sive iustificantem et salvificam.? 
Our author also interprets ὑποστασις as CONFIDENCE; and 
most interesting and important is the fact that he lays down 
the arguments for this interpretation, which have been so 
frequently repeated by other exegetes. Capellus notes that 
classical authors use ὑποστασις in various senses, and, what 
is to our immediate purpose, he says that it is employed in 
this Epistle in two meanings: (a) as a subsisting PERSON 
(Heb. i, 3); (6) as an act or habit of CONFIDENCE: 
Secundo significat habitum vel actum fiducialem.* Then 
Capellus gives a philological proof for this interpretation of 
vrootacts. He says that viocraois is derived from the 
preposition ὑπο, which has the meaning of submission joined 
with expectation, and from the noun στασις which means a 
FIRM STANDING: Quo sensu consideranda I, prepositio, II, 
nomen. Prepositio sumitur hic eodem sensu quo sumitur 
in vocibus vzropeveryv, etc. Designat enim utrobique submis- 
sionem cum expectatione coniunctam. Nomen στασιὶς con- 
siderandum ut habens significationem standi.... Ita 
υποστασις erat FIDUCIA velut in statione manens ac rem 


1 Comm. in Omnes Lib. N. T., p. 77. 
2 Critict Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1114. 
3 Op. cit., p. 1115. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 77 


promissam exspectans cum animi submissione.! Then fol- 
lows the confirmation of his view from the usage of ὑποστα- 
σις in the LXX as FIDUCIA (Ps. xxxix, 7; Ruth i, 12; Ezek. 
xix, 5; and in the N. T. 2 Cor. ix, 4; and xi, 17; and in 
Heb. iii, 14). We have here the results of a philological 
playing with the term ὑποστασις, which are quite foreign to 
the sense of the term in the Greek Patristic literature, and 
which show a superficial knowledge of Greek. ) 

CAMERON (71625) interprets ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις as 
EXPECTATION OF THINGS HOPED FOR, and like Capellus 
confirms the same by the usage of υὑποστασις in the afore- 
said passages of the LXX. Speaking of υποστασις he says: 
Sed eo potius sensus accipienda est in N. T. haec vox, quo 
in Veteri apud LXX. Atque ΓΙ h.e. EXPECTATIONES, 
interpretantur per hance vocem vzoctacw.* The traditional 
Greek exegesis is here, as in Capellus, entirely abandoned. 

TIRINUS (fF 1636) follows the Greek exegesis of vrroctacts. 
In his further explanation he remarks that, although “ things 
hoped for” do not yet exist (nondum existunt), yet Faith 
makes them to subsist in the intellect (facit subsistere in in- 
tellectu), so that the believer is as certain about them as if 
they already de facto existed: Res quae sperantur et non- 
dum existunt, facit subsistere in intellectu, id est tam certas 
in animo hominis haberi ac tam de facto existerent.? Tirinus 
here shows with great clarity how the notion of conviction 
in πίστις depends on ὑποστασις, by which “things hoped 
for” are MADE TO SUBSIST IN THE INTELLECT OF THE BE- 
LIEVER. ‘Tirinus is also the first to reject the interpretation 
of υποστασις aS FIDUCIA. 

CORNELIUS A LAPIDE (+1637) gives two possible inter- 
pretations of our text according as ὑποστασις is understood 
either as FOUNDATION, or aS REALITY : 

1 Critict Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1115. 


2 Critici Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1114. 
3 Comm. in 8. S., II, 483. 


78 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


1. Ὑποστασις = FOUNDATION. Cornelius says that if 
υὑποστασις means FOUNDATION, then our text must be inter- 
preted as follows: Faith is the BASIS or FOUNDATION of 
“things hoped for”: Fides ergo est substantia, id est BASIS 
et FUNDAMENTUM, rerum sperandarum.! But, as we have 
shown so often, ὑποστασις means FOUNDATION only by rea- 
son of a popular philological derivation, or by reason of a 
dogmatic analogy; and, hence, it is no true interpretation of 
our text. 

2. Ὑποστασὶς = REALITY. This preferred interpretation 
of our text is the current Greek exegesis of the same. 
Cornelius thinks that ὑποστασις must be understood in the 
same sense as found in ec. iil, 14 of the same Epistle, viz., 
a SUBSISTING and EXISTING THING, Idem est quod SUBSIS- 
TENTIA et EXISTENTIA.2, Our author then explains how 
“things hoped for,” which do NOT YET SUBSIST OF THEM- 
SELVES, yet through certitude HAVE THAT KIND OF EXIST- 
ENCE (to the believer) by which they are regarded as 
ALREADY EXISTING: Fides facit ut bona futura quae non- 
dum existunt certa habeamus, certoque futura credamus et 
speremus, perinde ac st iam subsisterent; eaque coram nobis 
cerneremus : fides enim illa ipsa quasi praesentia et certissima 
oculis mentis subiicit, sicque per suam certitudinem, guamdam 
subsistentiam dat rebus speratis et futuris in intellectu et 
mente fidelium.? IIvo71s makes “ things hoped for” so REAL 
to the believer that, in spite of the fact that they are future, 
they are regarded as ALREADY EXISTING (ac si iam subsis- 
terent). In a word, πίστις through υποστασις is the ANTICI- 
PATION OF A FUTURE REALITY. The effect of this MAKING 
“THINGS HOPED FOR” REAL TO THE BELIEVER is CERTI- 
TUDE, and, hence, we can call πίστις here, as does the 
Peshitto, —PERSUASIO ET CERTITUDO de eis rebus quae 
sunt in spe, perinde ac si iam existerent actu.* 


1 Comm. in 5. S., XVIII, 518. 3 Ibid. 
2 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 79 


Hueo Grortius (+1645), following the new exegesis of 
Capellus, interprets ὑποστασις of our text as FIRM EXPECTA- 
TION, and confirms the same by the usual appeal to the LXX 
and, also, to what will become the classical reference to the 
Ancient Greeks (t.e. Polybius): Rerum sperandarum FIRMA 
QUAEDAM EXPECTATIO.! Grotius also instances the usage 
of “substantia” in Tertullian (De Cultu Fem., II, 2), which 
we have already considered. 

THOMAS GATAKERUS (}1654) adopts the exegesis of 
Castalio: Ὑποστασις = SUBIECTIO. ‘The interpretation reads 
as follows: SUBIECTIO quod absentia nobis subiiciat ac pro- 
ponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse videantur, nec secus iis 
assentiamur quam si cerneremus.® This exegesis is essen- 
tially the Greek Patristic interpretation of our text, in 
which the REALITY OF “ THINGS HOPED FOR” BY PRESENTA- 


TION is the keynote. 

Like Cornelius a Lapide, MENocuIus (7 1655) notes two 
traditional interpretations of our text; 

1. Faith is the FOUNDATION SUSTAINING OUR HOPE; 
Fundamentum spem nostram sustentans.* 

2. Fides is the SUBSISTENTIA and EXISTENTIA of “ things 
hoped for”: Fides est subsistentia sive existentia rerum 
sperandarum.® It is a repetition of an interpretation already 
well known to us. 

Although MATTHEW PoLus’ (71669) interpretation of 
Heb. xi, 1 is but a synopsis of the interpretations in Critici 
Sacri, yet, since ὑποστασις began to be interpreted as FIDU- 
CIA at this time, it will be useful to note the argument that 
our author contributes for the same: Probatur haec ex- 
positio: (1) ex origine vocis, ab υφίστασθαι, quod est firmi- 


1 Criticit Sacri, VII, Part I, p. 1181. 

2 Cf. p. 48 ff. 

3 Cf. Poli, Matthaei, Synopsis Crit. Ht Alior., IV, 1358. 
4 Comm. Tot. 8. S., Il, 248. 

5 Ibid. 


80 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


ter stare, non cadere, non fugere, non cedere, ut apud Plut. 
et Synes; (2) ex usu vocis, tum Heb. iii, 14, tum apud 
LXX qui vrocracwy pro spe et expectatione ponunt, Ruth i, 
12; Ps. xxxix, 8; Ezek. xix, 5; tum in Polybio.! 

DANIEL BRENIUS (c. 1666) repeats the Greek expression 
for the two ways by which “things hoped for” are made 
REAL to the believer, viz., by ANTICIPATED POSSESSION and 
by PRESENTATION. Our author says that Fides is called 
the “substantia rerum sperandarum,” quia facit ut res in 
expectatione positae, quae nondum actu possidentur, velut 
praesto sint, animo apprehendantur.? 

WILLIAM BuRKITT (71703) connects the two interpre- 
tations of vzectacis — FIRM EXPECTATION and _ SUBSIS- 
TENTIA —in these words: Speaking of Faith, it is a CONFI- 
DENT AND FIRM EXPECTATION of good things which God 
has promised, giving the good things hoped for a REAL 
SUBSISTENCE in our minds and souls.® 

The secondary interpretation of ὑποστασις by NATALIS 
ALEXANDER (71724) is FOUNDATION, but his primary 
interpretation is the traditional one — PRESENTATION OF 
REALITY: Quia futura bona caelestia et aeterna: quae sunt 
obiectum spei nostrae, in nobis gquodammodo subsistere facit, de 
illis adeo certos nos reddens ac st ipsa tam praestita essent, ac 
manibus tenerentur.* 

GEORGIUS RAPHELUS (7 1750) merely adopts Gerhard’s 
interpretation of ὑποστασις as FIDUCIA, and gives the usual 
references to the LXX; and he is the first to note down the 
exact reference to Polybius (De Horatio Coclite, Lib. VI, c. 
55, and Lib. V, c. 16).® 


1 Synopsis Crit. et Alior., IV, 1354. 

2 Opera Theologica, In Part. N.T., 110. 

8 Hzpository Notes with, etc., Heb. xi, 1. 

4 Comm. Literalis et Moralis in Omnes Epist. Sancti Pauli Apost., etc., 
Tom. II, 496. 

5 Annotationes Philologicas in N. T., III, 687 sq. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 81 


WotrFius (71738) also accepts the interpretation of 
υποστασις of our text as FIDUCIA, although he notes the 
Patristic exegesis and also shows the resemblance between 
the Pauline πίστις of Heb. xi, 1 and Philo’s πίστις in De 
Abrah. Our author says very plainly: Assentior illis, qui 
υποστασιν de CERTA FIDUCIA ad res speratas accipiunt.? 

Also for DoppRIDGE (71751) Faith is the CONFIDENT 
EXPECTATION ? of “ things hoped for.” 

BENGEL (71751), on the contrary, goes back to the 
Patristic literature for his interpretation, and sums up in 
most pointed phrases the current Greek exegesis of ελπιζο- 
μενων υὑποστασις: Faith is the substance by which the 
FUTURE THINGS HOPED FOR ARE PRESENTED OR SET 
BEFORE US AS PRESENT.?® 

We shall close the Middle Age period of the exegesis of 
ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις with CALMET (} 1757). Ὑποστασις, 
for him, is FOUNDATION which (from a further description) 
is evidently nothing more than the traditional Greek inter- 
pretation of our text: Fides est fundamentum: has (things 
hoped for) praesto exhibit fides, ipsamque illarum veritatem 
et possessionem quoddammodo praebet: imo ipsa est substantia 
earum rerum, quas per spem anticipatis.t We have here the 
Greek exegesis of our text in which miotis MAKES “ things 
hoped for” REAL either BY PRESENTATION or by ANTICI- 
PATED POSSESSION. The curious thing about it, however, 
is that this typical Greek exegesis of ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις 
is equated by the interpretation FOUNDATION OF “THINGS 
HOPED FOR.” 


Recapitulation 


We are now in a position to note the RESULTS of our 
investigation into the exegesis of ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις of 


1 Curae Philologicae et Criticae in X. post. S. Pauli Epist., 738. 
2 The Family Expositor, VI, 102. 

3 The Gnomon of the N.T., ΤΙ, 654 sq. 

4 Comm. Liter. in Omnes Lib. Vet. et Nov. Test., X, 635. 


82 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Heb. xi, 1 during the Middle Ages, and to estimate their 
value. As in the Patristic period, so in the Middle Ages, 
the interpretation of the verse has hinged upon the meaning 
of υποστασις : 

I. A. Υποστασις = REALITY: 

1. ANTICIPATION OF REALITY, 
2. EMPHASIS OF REALITY, 
3. PRESENTATION OF REALITY. 

Walafried Strabo, Hrabanus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Hugo of St. Victor, Gilbert, Thomas of Acquin (secondary 
interpretation), Bonaventure, Vatablus, Calvin, Clarius, 
Castalio, Is. Casaubon, Estius, Tirinus, Bellarmine, John 
Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Gatakerus, Menochius, Brenius, 
Burkitt, Natalis Alexander, Bengel, Calmet. 

B. Trrocracis = CERTITUDE OF REALITY : — Estius. 

11. Ὑποστασις = FOUNDATION. 

Estius, Bellarmine, Cornelius a Lapide, Natalis Alexander, 
Calmet, Clarius, Menochius. 

Ill. Ὑὕποστασις = CONFIDENCE, EXPECTATION. 

Erasmus, Luther, Capellus, Cameron, H. Grotius, Gerhard, 
G. Raphelus, Wolfius, Burkitt, Doddridge. 

IV. Ὑποστασις = CONTENTS, ESSENCE. 

Thomas of Acquin, Suarez, Castalio. 

V. Trrocracis = FORTITUDE. Bonaventure. 

Accordingly, the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 during the Middle 
Ages is characterized by several interpretations of ελπε- 
fouevwv vroctacis. The traditional Greek interpretation 
which emphasized the REALITY of “ things hoped for” either 
by ANTICIPATION or by REPRESENTATION was preserved and 
copied more generally than any other. Besides the Greek, 
five other interpretations came into vogue according as v7ro- 
στασις was understood to mean (@) CERTITUDE, (6) FOUNDA- 
TION, (6) CONTENTS, (d) CONFIDENCE, (6) FORTITUDE. 

The sense CERTITUDE arose by mistaking the effect of 
vrootacis ελπιζομενων (the CERTITUDE regarding the 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 83 


REALITY of “ things hoped for,” produced by a vivid REPRE- 
SENTATION of the objects of hope to the mind) for υπο- 
στασις itself, (that which makes “things hoped for” REAL 
to the believer by a vivid REPRESENTATION of them). 

The meaning FOUNDATION came into use either by reason 
of a popular philological derivation of ὑποστασις from ὑπὸ 
and στασις, yielding the naive sense FIRM STANDING or 
FOUNDATION, as is certainly the case with FORTITUDE, or 
by reason of an a priori analogy between salvation and an 
edifice in which πίστις was compared to the FOUNDATION of 
salvation. Of course, the latter sense is no interpretation of 
Heb. xi, 1 at all. 

Ὑποστασις in the sense of CONTENTS shows the influence of 
the Latin equivalent substantia. But υποστασις in the sense 
of FIDUCIA and FIRM EXPECTATION is the interesting “ find ” 
of our investigation into the exegesis of the Middle Ages. 
It is interesting, because it is an entirely NEW INTERPRETA- 
TION that breaks completely from the Greek and Latin 
exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. It will be even more interesting to 
see what interpretation will prevail in the Modern exegesis 
of our text. Will the Greek Patristic exegesis with its roots 
in the very literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1 be preserved? Will 
the new interpretation of ὑποστασις as FIDUCIA find more 
champions, or will a still NEWER interpretation spring up in 
the period which we now proceed to examine? 


4. InN MopERN EXEGESIS 


For the twofold reason (a) that the number of commenta- 
ries on Heb. xi, 1 during the Modern Period is very great, 
and (6) that the Moderns merely repeat the interpretations 
of our text as developed in the two preceding Periods, we 
need not give to it the same detailed examination we have 
devoted to that of the Patristic Literature and the Middle 
Ages. And for the sake of even greater brevity we shall 
group the Modern authors in classes differentiated by the 


84 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


various interpretations followed. However, we shall en- 
deavor to cite as much from these authors as is absolutely 
necessary to convey their exact meaning. ‘The interpreta- 
tion of Heb. xi, 1, for the Modern, as for the older exegetes, 
hinges on the word ὑπόστασις. Hence, their interpretations 
vary with their understanding of this pivotal term. . 
I. A. Υποστασις = REALITY: Faith is the REALITY 
(metonymically) of “things hoped for.” So Rosenmiiller: 
“Tllud quod facit, ut iam extent, quae sperantur.”1 In the 
same sense John Owen interprets ελπιζομενων υποστασις : 
“Tt (mots) gives those things hoped for, and as they are 
hoped for, a REAL SUBSISTENCE, ὑποστασις, in the minds 
and souls of them that do believe.” 2 Seiss repeats the same 
from the true point of view that the object of πιστις is reve- 
lation: “Our taking God at His word, enables us to act as 
if we saw them (7.e., “things hoped for”). They thus re- 
ceive a REAL SUBSISTENCE in our minds.” ® Εἰ, 5. Samp- 
son has found the best English equivalent for the Greek 
sense of υποστασίς, Viz., REALIZATION: “It (mots) gives 
them (7.e., things hoped for) the force of PRESENT REALI- 
TIES,” and for this reason: “As Faith REALIZES things 
hoped for.” 4 H. J. Ripley, conscious of the dynamic force 
of πίστις, thus exegetes our verse: “It (πίστις) gives sub- 
stance, as it were, to things which as yet are only objects 
of hope, so that those things have the force of REALITIES, 
ACTUALLY EXISTING AND WITHIN OUR GRASP, and conse- 
quently they engage our affections and determine our pur- 
pose.” ® Like Seiss, Junkin says: “ Thus it is a REALITY — 
a PRESENT SUBSISTENCE in the believing mind and heart, 
of the things held up before us in the Gospel.” ® MacEvilly 


1 Scholia in N. T. vol. V, 274. 

2 An Exposit. of the Epist. to the Heb., etc., IV, 361. 
3 Popular Lectures on the Epist. to the Heb., 318. 
4A Crit. Comm. on the Epist. to the Heb., 409. 

5 The Epist. to the Heb., with Explanat. Notes, 135. 
6 A Comm. upon the Epist. to the Heb., 387. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 85 


(secondary interpretation) says that Faith through ὑποστα- 
σις “gives these things we hope for a new and ANTICIPATED 
EXISTENCE in our minds.”! Henry Cowles, considering 
this world of sense, says: “ Faith comes to our help to give 
substance — A SENSE OF SOLID REALITY — to what we hope 
for in the realm of spiritual life.” 2 Thus also Corluy: ‘Es- 
sentia per se stans—si iam resolvitur synecdoche, fides eo 
sensu dicitur substantia rerum sperandarum, quatenus est 
firma mentis persuasio, qua in mente credentium futura 
bona ANTICIPATAM SUBSISTENTIAM nanciscantur.”? Van 
Steenkiste equates πίστις as a “reality” with “quasi fun- 
damentum,” but obviously only as an analogy: ““ Fides facit 
ut res sperandae in nobis subsistant, quasi sit fundamentum 
quo spes nitatur.”* Westcott, impressed with the correct 
understanding of ελπιζομενων as “things of the future,” ® 
interprets the text thus: “Faith is that which causes the 
REALITY of things to come TO EXIST now.” ® Prat similarly 
says: “Enfin elle est la REALITE des choses que nous espé- 
rons, en tant qu’elle est une prise de possession anticipée des. 
biens & venir et qu’elle empéche nos espérances d’étre vains 
ou fantastiques.”’ Dummelow in the light of the context 
of the whole Epistle (in which earthly things are contrasted 
with heavenly things, as types, copies, or shadows are con- 
trasted with REALITIES) solves the mystery of υποστασις in 
these words: “ Faith is that by which the invisible becomes 
REAL and the future becomes PRESENT. Faith gives REAL- 


1 An Exposit. of the Epistles of St. Paul, etc., 225. 

2 Epistle to the Heb., etc., 109. 

3 Spicilegium, etc., II, 210. 

4 Comm. in Omnes Epist. S. Pauli, ΤΙ, 602. 

5 Aristotle also so defined it: ελπὶς του μελλοντος εστιν. Cf. his book, De 
Memoria et Reminiscentia, c. I, 449 Ὁ, 27, in Biehl’s edition, Parva Natura- 
lia; cf. also: adda Tov μεν παροντος αἰσθησις, Tov δὲ μελλοντος emis, Tov δὲ 
γενομένου μνημὴ (ibid.). 

6 The Epist. to the Heb., 351. 

7 La Théologie de Saint Paul, 548. 


86 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


ITy to things hoped for, and puts to the test things unseen. 
They (things hoped for) exist apart from Faith, but it is by 
Faith that they are REALIZED.” 1 

B. Ὑποστασις = ASSURANCE or PLEDGE OF REALITY: 
Faith is the ASSURANCE or PLEDGE OF THE REALITY of 
“things hoped for.” So Conrad Lomb: “ Hine fides cER- 
TISSIMUM PIGNUS est rerum sperandarum.”? Jos. Long- 
king, in a somewhat confused way, writes: “ By Faith being 
the ‘Substance ’— the ‘sure expectation, or ‘confidence ’ — 
of those ‘ hoped for things,’ is meant that it enables its pos- 
sessor to entertain SUCH A SENSE OF THEIR REALITY, and 
that they will become HIS AT SOME FUTURE PERIOD, as to 
furnish an ASSURED TRUST, a stable foundation, on which 
to build his ‘hope’ of realizing them.”? Sam. Τὶ Lowrie says 
simply: “ Now Faith is the ASSURANCE of things hoped 
 for.”4 Bernardine ἃ Piconio interprets ὑποστασις more 
pointedly: “Faith is the ASSURANCE OF THE REALITY of 
that which we expect.” ® C.J. Vaughan gives this exegesis 
of υποστασις : “* ASSURANCE of (things hoped for), as in 
four out of the five places where the word (vzroctaois) occurs 
in the New Testament.’ ® Edgar Goodspeed understands it 
in the same sense: *‘ Now Faith is the ASSURANCE of things 
hoped for.”7 Dummelow, besides his explanation above, 
notes that RV. uses ASSURANCE for ὑπόστασις, and then 
explains it: “ What is meant is that Faith is that which 
gives ASSURANCE or CERTAINTY of things still in the 
future. They exist apart from Faith, but it is by Faith 
that they are REALIZED.” ὃ H.R. Boll, much like the Greek 


1A Comm. on the Holy Bible, etc., 1026. 

2 Comm. in Divi Pauli Apost. Epist. ad Heb., 220. 

3 Notes on the Epist. of Paul the Apost. to the Heb., 334. 
4 An Explanation of the Epist. to the Heb., 407. 

5 An Exposit., etc. — The Epist. to the Heb., 891. 

6 The Epist to the Heb., etc., 213. 

7 The Epist. to the Heb., 96. 

8 Op. cit., 1026. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 87 


Patristic writers, interprets our passage as follows: “It is 
Faith that makes the glories we hope for REAL to us, so that 
they are not dreams, air castles, vain imaginations, but a 
REAL INHERITANCE. It is not only the basis of our hopes, 
but our ASSURANCE of them. All this is involved in the 
expression: Faith is the ASSURANCE of things hoped for.” 1 

II. ὑπόστασις = FIRM PERSUASION, or CONVICTION. 
Hence, Faith is the FIRM PERSUASION, or CONVICTION of 
“things hoped for.” Thus Bernadine a Piconio: “ ‘The 
writer apparently uses the word ὑπόστασις, translated in the 
Vulgate “substance,” which is its proper meaning here as in 
2 Cor. xi, 17, in a subjective sense, meaning CERTITUDE, 
CONVICTION, or CONFIDENCE.” 2? More clearly Weinel says : 
“Glaube ist ein UBERZEUGTSEIN von der unsichtbaren Welt, 
auf die man hofft.”® Johannes Weiss, while slightly exag- 
gerating the sense of ὑπόστασις, yet interestingly interprets 
our verse thus: “Ὑποστασις, eigentlich die feste Substanz 
oder das Fundament, wird in der hellenischen Prosa von der 
UNERSCHUTTERLICHEN Festigkeit des Willens oder des 
Mutes oder der UsperzEUGUNG gebraucht.”* Paul Feine, 
speaking of the “ beriihmte Definition des Glaubens” (given 
in Heb. xi, 1), says: “Ein Doppeltes wird damit hervor- 
gehoben: (1) dass es sich im Glauben um HEILSREALITATEN 
handelt, welche in dieser Welt noch nicht in die Erscheinung 
treten, daher unsichtbar und Gegenstand der Hoffnung 
sind; (2) dass der Glaube doch aber eine UNERSCHUTTER- 
LICHE UBERZEUGUNG von der Wirklichkeit dieser Giiter 
ist.” 5 

Ill. Ὑποστασις = FOUNDATION, or ROOT, so that Faith is 
the FOUNDATION or ROOT of “things hoped for.” Thus 


1 Lessons on Heb., 140. 

2 Op. cit., 396. 

ὃ Biblische Theologie des N. T., 599. 
4 Op. cit., I, 322. 

5 Theologie des N.T., 656. 


88 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Conrad Lomb, mistaking the etymology of υποστασις, 
writes: “Sicut enim substantia SUSTENTAT accidentia, ita 
fides SUSTENTAT spem nostram, adeo ut nulla in nobis sit 
futura spes, si non sit fides, quae eam fulciat et sustineat.” 1 
MacEvilly, applying it to justification, calls Faith the “Root 
and FOUNDATION of justification.” Stentrup thus desig- 
nates πίστις : “Das FUNDAMENT und die Wurzel all der 
Giiter, die durch Christus uns geworden sind.”? Many 
other modern exegetes have interpreted υὑποστασις in the 
sense of FOUNDATION, but sinee they have further explained 
their usage in terms of one of the other interpretations of 
our text, we shall consider their exegesis in other and more 
proper classifications. 

IV. Trroctacits = CONFIDENCE: Faith is the CONFIDENCE 
of “things hoped for.” Thus Stuart understands ἐλπεζομε- 
νων ὑποστασις: “The writer has just been exhorting his 
readers not to cast away their CONFIDENCE or BOLDNESS 
which would ensure a great reward (Heb. x, 35). This 
sense is evidently appropriate here.”* Kuinoel for confi- 
dence puts “expectation”: “FIRMA EXPECTATIO rerum 
sperandarum.”*® Max. Roeth identifies ὑπόστασις with υπο- 
μονη: “Et Fides vel maxime consistit in EXPECTATIONE 
(υποστασις idem sonat quod vzropovn (x, 86; ili, 14)) rerum 
sperandarum.”® Olshausen, without assigning any reason 
for his interpretation, rather curtly disposes of the difficult 
υποστασις : *“ Here it (substantia) is, of course, to be taken 
in the sense of FIDUCIA, FIRMLY GROUNDED CONFIDENCE.” 7 
Liinnemann though mentioning the other interpretations pre- 
fers “Innere ZUVERSICHT auf das was noch gehofft wird, 

1 Op. cit., 219. 

2 Op. cit., 225. 

8 ZkTh. (1877), 5. 73 sq. 

4 Comm. on the Epist. to the Heb., 484. 
5 Comm. in Epist. ad Heb., 386. 


6 Epist. Vulgo ad Heb. etc., 178. 
7 Op. cit., VI, 540. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 89 


in die Wirklichkeit noch nicht eingetreten ist.”1 Delitzsch 
after once having rejected the interpretation υὑποστασις = 
CONFIDENCE finally adopted it on the strength of the usage 
of the term in the LXX and the cown: “ἃ STEADFAST CON- 
FIDENCE with regard to the objects of hope, in contrast to 
the wavering and despondency which would faithlessly aban- 
don them.” Milligan explains πίστις as “A FIRM AND 
WELL-GROUNDED CONFIDENCE in reference to the objects of 
hope.” ὃ Bill* calls it “STANDHAFTE ZUVERSICHT,”® and 
Philip Schaff “cONFIDENCE” (as in Heb. iii, 14).6 Bey- 
schlag says: “ Faith is a FIRM CONFIDENCE, a MORAL CER- 
TAINTY with regard to objects of hope.”’ F. W. Farrar 
notes other interpretations, but equates ὑποστασις with CoN- 
FIDENCE. In this sense he accepts the term in iii, 14 
(comp. 2 Cor. ix, 4; xi, 17), and he thinks “ this sense to be 
the most probable meaning of the word here.” ® Bernhard 
Weiss speaks of “ein ZUVERSICHTLICHES VERTRAUEN auf 
gehoffte Dinge,” adding, es “ist ja der Grundbegriff von 
πίστις iiberall der des Vertrauens.” ® Stevens very summa- 
rily explains the difficulty: ‘“‘ Now Faith is the FIRM CON- 
FIDENCE with respect to objects of hope.” 1° And even more 
briefly is it expounded by H. J. Holtzmann: “ Eine ZUVER-- 
sicHt auf Gehofftes.”1! It is a remarkable fact that, in the 
classic work on Πίστις in the New Testament, Schlatter 


1 Kritisch. exeget. Handbuch δον den Hebrderbrief, 348. 

2 Op. cit., II, 210. 

3 The N.T. Comm. IX, 300. 

4 Der Brief an die Heb. etc., 568. Cf. fuller definition: Das vielfach 
gedeutete Wort vrocracis hat, wie jetzt fast allgemein anerkannt ist, hier 
dieselbe Bedeutung wie iii, 14, naimlich “ standhafte Zuversicht.’’ 

5 Ibid. 

6 A Popular Comm. on the N. T., IV, Hebrews, 75. 

7 N. T. Theology, etc., I, 335. 

8 The Epist. of Paul the Apostle to the Heb., etc., 161. 

9 Der Brief an die Heb., etc., 281. 

10 The Theology of the New Testament, 515. 

11 Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie, Il, 346. 


90 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


rightly repudiates the contention that υὑποστασις meant 
“« Confidence” in the xowvn SvaXexros in the emphatic words: 
“ Zuversicht heisst das Wort in keiner derselben”;1 and 
although even here he understands the term as fundamentally 
“Stehn” (“in virocraots geht der Begriff ‘Stehn’ niemals 
verloren”’),2, yet the inference by which he arrives at 
“ Zuversicht ” for the interpretation of the term in Heb. xi, 1 
is most interesting. It is largely by the force of a supposed 
contrast between ὑποστολη in the preceding verse with vzro- 
στασις of our verse that this interpretation isreached. “Nicht 
‘weichen,’ sondern festes, freudiges, zuversichtliches Stehn, 
das ist Glaube.”® He then shows that this is none other 
than “ Zuversicht”: “Das Gehoffte erméglicht das feste 
Stehn, es wirkt die Zuversicht und wehrt dem Weichen. 
Und da der Grund der Zuversicht ihr auch den Inhalt und 
das Ziel bestimmt, so ist der Glaubende, wenn er auf darge- 
botenem Verheissungsgute Stellung nimmt, demselbem blei- 
bend zugewandt.”* Many others also interpret ὑποστασις 
in Heb. xi, 1 in the sense of CONFIDENCE, as Schultz, 
Stein, Stengel, Von Gerlach,® Bohme, Tholuck, Bleek, De 
Wette, Bloomfield, McLean, Ebard, Alford, Moll and * most 
modern interpreters.” δ 
V. Ὑποστασις = ANTICIPATED POSSESSION or TITLE- 

DEEDS: Faith is the ANTICIPATED POSSESSION or TITLE- 
DEEDS of “things hoped for.” Thus Shepardson: “ Faith 
deals essentially with the future and with invisible things; 
and is that power by which WE BECOME ASSURED OF OUR 
ULTIMATE POSSESSION of these future things.” 7 Beyschlag 
also writes: ‘The relation between God and man advances 

1 Der Glaube im Neuen Test., 8. 582. 

2 Op. cit., 581. 

3 Op. cit., 459. 

ει, 4 Ibid. 
5 Delitzsch, Op. cit., IT, 207. 


6 Milligan, op. cit., 299. 
7 Studies in the Epist. to the Heb., 470. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 91 


by a progressive revelation on God’s side and a GROWING 
POSSESSION through Faith on man’s side. . . . The Faith 
which lays hold of these things with inner sense (cf. the 
τον aopatov ws opwr, xi, 27) is a thinking, a knowing; but 
it is more than that, it is at the same time a grasping with 
the will: A LAYING HOLD ON IN ORDER TO POSSESS.” 1 
Finally, Moulton, on the evidence of the Papyri, has this 
ingenuous interpretation: “Faith is the TITLE-DEEDS of 
things hoped for. . . . Men and women who have received 
a promise from God counted that promise as being the 
TITLE-DEEDS to something they could not see yet, but which 
they were going to see some day.” ? 

We may now briefly state the results of the Modern 
Period of the Exegesis of Heb. xi, 1: 

I. Ὑποστασις = REALITY or the “assurance of reality,” 
— Rosenmiiller, John Owen, Seiss, Εἰ, S. Sampson, Lomb, 
Longking, H. J. Ripley, Junkin, Lowrie, MacEvilly (sec- 
ondary interpretation), Henry Cowles, Corluy, Van Steen- 
kiste, Westcott, Bernadine 4 Piconio (secondary interpre- 
tation), C. J. Vaughan, Goodspeed, R. H. Boll, Prat, 
Dummelow, etc. 

II. Trrocracis = CONVICTION, — Bernadine a  Piconio, 
Weinel, Johannes Weiss, Paul Feine, etc. 

WII. Ὑποστασις = FOUNDATION, — Lomb, MacEvilly, 
Stentrup, etc. 

IV. Ὑποστασις = CONFIDENCE, — Stuart, Kuinoel, Max. 
Roeth, Olshausen, Liinnemann, Delitzsch, Milligan, Bill, 
Schaff, Beyschlag, F. W. Farrar, Bernhard Weiss, Stevens, 
H. J. Holtzmann, Schlatter, Schultz, Stein, Stengel, Von 
Gerlach, Bohme, Tholuck, Bleek, De Wette, Bloomfield, 
McLean, Ebard, Alford, Moll, and “most modern inter- 
preters.” 

V. ΥὙποστασις = ANTICIPATED POSSESSION, or TITLE- 
DEEDS, — Shepardson, Beyschlag, Moulton. 

1 Op. cit., ΤΙ, 335. 2 Op. cit., 28. 


92 7 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


The characteristics of the Modern Exegesis of our verse 
are: 

(a) No new interpretation was produced ; 

(6) The Patristic understanding of υποστασις as “reality” 
just barely held its own, and the English bunsgsuna ts gave 
this rich equivalent for ὑπόστασις, “ realization ” 

(6) The most important note is the sivtartaaidony fact that 
Erasmus’ interpretation of ὑποστασις as “confidence” grad- 
ually gained momentum, until it became the popular expla- 
nation of the term. 


Recapitulation and Conclusion of the Historical Part 


After investigating what men have thought of Heb. xi, 1 
from the first time that the verse appeared in extant literature 
to the modern exegesis of our text, we are now prepared to 
state the net RESULTS and to estimate their value. Every 
exegesis of “die schénsten and die starksten Worte tiber den 
Glauben, die im Neuen Testament stehen”! hinges upon 
υποστασις. Hence, according to the understanding of 
υποστασις interpretations will be differentiated. From the 
summaries of the RESULTS of our exegetical investigation, 
it is evident that the various interpretations can be reduced 
to two, — REALITY and CONFIDENCE of “things hoped for.” 
The remarkable feature of this exegesis of our text is the 
striking contrast between: (1) One interpretation (Faith 
makes REAL the objects of hope) that goes back in an 
unbroken historical chain to the unanimous understanding of 
the Greek Patristic writers, and (2) the other interpretation 
(Faith is the CONFIDENCE of “things hoped for”) that 
sprang up in the 16th century and to-day has become the 
popular exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. The former has its roots in 
the living language of our text, and is the closest link to the 
literary milieu that gave birth to the Epistle; whereas the 
latter, the creation of dogmatic tendency, is removed by 


1 Weinel, Op, cit., 600. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT 93 


fifteen centuries from the living language of Heb. xi, 1, and 
is altogether unmindful of the etymology of ὑποστασις. 

_ It is indeed a striking contrast. Now what is the key to 
the true interpretation of our text? 

Is it PHILOLOGY? Hardly; for, as we shall see later, all 
interpretations claim the confirmation of PHILOLOGY. Hence, 
this science of itself cannot absolutely decide the question. 
From the philological point of view, however, we may say 
that that interpretation which the Greek Patristic writers 
champion has this undoubted advantage — the Greeks them- 
selves had the best practical philological sense of their own 
tongue. 

Is it conTEXT? Likewise, all interpretations claim the 
support of the CONTEXT. Hence, this of itself cannot settle 
the matter. 

Neither can it be the 4 PRIORI CONCLUSION of Protestant 
theologians that πίστις is essentially FrpucIA. No scholar 
will admit such an a priori conclusion as a basis for a critical 
exegesis of Heb. xi, 1. The investigation would lack the 
objectivity required for a critical study. 

What, then, is the key to the critical exegesis of Heb. xi, 1? 
Assuming only one incontestable law of language, viz., that 
unless the context, or the usage and the spirit of the author 
expressly exclude it, των ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις was used in 
the current understanding of the expression. ‘The Greek 
literary history of virocraous, reaching its crest of decisive 
importance in the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1, alone can 
determine this meaning. The Greek Patristic literature is 
an important part of this literary history. Hence, for all 
critical students of the Holy Scriptures, the exegetical his- 
tory of Heb. xi, 1, from Clement of Alexandria to Johannes 
Weiss, has two important values: (1) It not only gives in 
detail the exact exegesis and problems of our text; (2) but 
it also advances the probability that that interpretation is 
the correct one which was unanimously understood in the 


94 | THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Greek Patristic literature, as FAITH IS THAT WHICH MAKES 
REAL THE OBJECTS OF HOPE, and which later found stout 
defenders in an unbroken historical chain down to our own 
times. But, of course, the Patristic literature is not ab- 
solutely decisive in determining the current meaning of τῶν 
ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις in the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1. 
It remains to inquire what interpretation the literary history 
of των ελπιζομενων υποστασις in the period preceding the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and concurrent with it, favors; and 
to what interpretation the philological investigation of the 
terms, the examination of the context, and harmony with 
the spirit of the author, lean. 


PART II — EXEGETICAL 


CHAPTER I 
HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION OF ὙΠΟΣΤΑΣΙΣ 


I. In tae HELLENIC WorRLD 


THE two outstanding results of the Historical Part of this 
investigation are the establishing of the original text of 
Heb. xi, 1, and the record of the various interpretations of 
the same. Among these interpretations the Greek Patristic 
exegesis not only predominates, but also has an admittedly 
historico-literary and, hence, the highest critical value for 
the explanation of the passage in question on the basis of a 
sound historical method. For, historically it forms an inte- 
gral part of Greek literary history, viz., the later phase of 
the xoivn διαλεκτος, the literary milieu of our verse. Ac- 
cordingly, the Greek Patristic interpretation of the pivotal 
word in Heb. xi, 1 has a probability not enjoyed by later 
exegesis. 

As we now proceed. to investigate the literary value of 
υποστασις, from its first usage in extant Greek literature to 
that in the κοινὴ διαλεκτος, it will be most important to 
note any similarities with or differences from the Patris- 
tic notion of the term. But, above all, in this investigation, 
we must keep an ever-vigilant outlook for the original mean- 
ing of υποστασις and its historical development down to the 
literary period in which Heb. xi, 1 was penned. For, very 
probably the author of our verse used υποστασις in that 
sense which was prepared by the historico-literary develop- 
ment of the term, and which was current when the Epistle 


to the Hebrews was written. 
97 


98 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Ὑποστασις began its literary career apparently as a well- 
established term. In the medical vocabulary of ΗΤΡΡΟΟ- 
RATES (Ὁ. 460 B.c.) the word is used again and again to 
designate “sediment” in urine. Thus in Prognosticon, c. 12, 
the ‘Father of Medicine”. says that urine is best when the 
υποστασις is white, smooth, and consistent during the whole 
course of the disease up to the crisis: Oupov δε apiotov εστιν, 
oTav ἡ λεύκη NUTOTTAGLS καὶ λείη καὶ OMAN παρα TrayTa 
τον χρονον, ect av κρίθη ἡ νουσος.1 This condition, says 
Hippocrates, indicates freedom from danger and an illness 
of short duration. But if the urine is deficient, and if it is 
sometimes passed clear and sometimes with a white and 
smooth sediment, the disease will be more protracted: Ez de 
διαλειποι Kat ποτε μεν καθαρον ovpeot, ποτε δευφισταιτο TO 
AevKOY τε καὶ λειον καὶ ομαλον, χρονιωτερὴ γίνεταί ἡ νουσος.3 
It is clear that υποστασις in the first, and υφισταιτο in 
the second passage, point to sediment. This meaning is 
further confirmed by Hippocrates’ definition of unhealthy 
urine: Farinaceous ὑποστασεῖς in the urine are bad: xpi- 
μνωδεες δὲ εν τοίσιν ουροίσιν ὑποστασεις πονηραι.8 These 
citations make it unmistakable that ὑποστασις was used by 
Hippocrates to signify sediment. Furthermore, the second 
citation indicates the verb form (υφιστασθαι) from which 
υποστασις is derived. For, obviously,-the clause of the first, 
oTav ἡ λευκὴ ἡ ὑποστασις καὶ λείη καὶ ομαλη, has the same 
sense as this clause of the second citation, ποτε δὲ υφισταῦτο 
To λεῦυκον TE καὶ λειον καὶ Ofarov. Hence, vrroctacis in the 
sense of sediment is derived from the form ὑφίστασθαι, and 
it means either (a) “that which remains firm” as opposed 
to “that which flows away” (vmoppvois)*; or (6) “that 


1 Hippocratis Opera Quae Feruntur Omnia, edidit H. Kuehlewein, I, 89, 
16 sq. 

2 Ibid., I, 89, 19 sq. 3 Ibid., I, 90, 5 sq. 

4 Cf. further evidence for vrocracis in Liddell and Scott, A Greek Lexicon, 
Hippocrates, 741 H and 822 D (Foesius’ edition). 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 99 


which settles at the bottom” as opposed to “that which 
drains off.”1! In a word, υποστασις is the solid matter in 
contrast to the more fleeting and transient stuff. 

In Μοχλικον, ὁ. 38, Hippocrates also used υποστασις in 
the sense of “base” or “something solid.” In this chapter 
our author formulates the rules for reduction and adjustment 
of broken limbs by forcible extension. Ὑποστασις occurs 
in the rules for applying extension to a broken thigh. 
When this is done on a bench, Hippocrates cites the common 
method: A bench is used six cubits long, two cubits broad, 
and one fathom in thickness, having two axles at each end, 
and at its middle two moderate-sized pillars, “upon which 
something like the step of a ladder rests for the ὑποστασις 
to the wood”: Eq’ wv ὡς κλιμακτηρ επεσταῖ ες THY ὑποστασιν 
τω Evo.” Here υὑποστασις is used as “something firm or 
solid” for support. For it is not the pillars, but rather the 
transverse piece (like the step of a ladder) on the pillars 
that serves as an ὑποστασις for the wood, or as the base, 
upon which the wood rests (επέσται) firmly. 

This second usage of ὑποστασις as the base, or “ that which 
makes firm ” in opposition to “ that which is movable,” shows 
the element it has in common with the first usage of the 
term, (as ‘that which settles or stands” in contrast to “ that 
which flows away”). Both are evidently popular meanings 
of νυποστασις. 

Side by side with this medical and popular meaning, 
υποστασις has found a place in the vocabulary of philosophers, 
if Stobaeus can be trusted for preserving the very words of 
ANTIPHON (b. 480 B.c.). For, in speaking of time (xpovos), 
Stobaeus quotes Antiphon as qualifying it by this contrast : 
vOnuUa ἡ METPOV TOV χρονον, OVy ὑποστασιν,8 te., time iS 
either a ‘theoretical concept (vonuwa) or a measure (μετρον), 

1 Ibid., Hippocrates, 686, 38 (Foesius’ edition). 


2 Op. cit., Il, 269, 17 sq. 
8 Diels’ Doxog. Graec., 318, 22 sq. 


100 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


but not an ὑπόστασις. The contrast to vonua shows that 
υποστασις is here tangible matter as opposed to idea. Itisa 
striking fact that the same notion of time (expressed in 
terms of emvora in contrast to ὑπόστασις) is repeated by 
later philosophers.1 Ὑποστασις is here used as a tangible 
REALITY in contrast to a mere THEORETICAL CONCEPT. 

Again, if we can trust Plutarch and Stobaeus for quoting 
the terminology used by DeEmocritus (Ὁ. 460 B.c.) and 
Ericurus (Ὁ. 342 B.c.), then the use of υὑποστασις as 
“REALITY” in contrast to “MERE APPEARANCE” (εμφασις) 
is more ancient than is generally supposed. In De Placitis 
Philosoph. IV, 14, (1), Plutarch says: Democritus and 
Epicurus were of the opinion that the images in the mirror 
(κατοπτρικας euhacets) happen according to the ὑποστασιν of 
the portrait placed before it by ourselves, though the images 
exist perverted in the mirror: tas xatomtpixas εμφασεις 
γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδωλων VTocTacets, ativa φερεσθαι μεν af’ 
υμων, συνιστασθαι δὲ emt του κατοπτρου κατα αντιπερι- 
στροφην.2 The sense can only be: The mirror-image 
happens according to the “REALITY OF THE PORTRAIT” 
(κατ᾽ εἰδωλων vtroctaces) placed before the mirror, with only 
this difference, the mirror-images represent things perverted 
(κατα avtireptotpopynv). In other words, we have here an 
evident instance where ὑποστασις means ‘*REALITY” in 
contrast to ewdacis “Α MERE APPEARANCE,” since the picture 
in the mirror is only the reflection of the reality in front of 
the mirror. It is interesting to observe that for the exist- 
ence of the image in the mirror, not υφιστασθαι is used but 
συνιστασθαι. ‘This fine distinction is an important confirma- 
tion of >the correctness of the interpretation of νποστασις as 
the reality of the object. 

Hence, if we can trust Plutarch and Stobaeus for quoting 
the very terminology employed by Antiphon, Democritus, 


1Cf. my discussion on Poseidonius, p. 107 ff. 
2 Diels’ Doxog. Graec., 405, 10 sq. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 2 101 


and Epicurus, then we must ‘note ‘another meaning for 
vrootacis in philosophy that is contemporary with its 
meaning in medicine and in the more popular language. Is 
there any relation between these two senses of the term? On 
the one hand, we have the meaning — “that which settles or 
stands firm” in contrast to “ that which is drained off or passes 
away”; and on the other hand, —‘“‘ REALITY” in contrast to 
“mere appearance” (eudacis). The former is the naive 
sense, an idea proper to a primitive and more realistic way of 
thinking, whereas the latter belongs to the popular philo- 
sophical world of thought, the term of a later and more abstract 
way of thinking. It is indeed a natural mental development 
that the naive contrasts, “sediment”— “flowing water,” 
“tangible ”—‘* fleeting,” “base of support” — “ movable 
things,’ should precede the more philosophical contrasts, 
“reality ’— “image,” “reality ”— ‘mere appearance.” Yet 
both usages of υὑποστασις have something in common. 
Schlatter also frankly admits this: “In ὑπόστασις geht der 
Begriff ‘Stehn’ niemals verloren. Auch seine abstraktere 
Wendung, in der es die Wurzel unseres Substanz geworden 
ist, geht vom Stehen aus im Gegensatze zum Schein, der sich 
auflést und verschwindet u. 5. w.”! In both usages there is 
the common idea— “something standing” in contrast to 
“something fleeting.” It is obvious that when ὑποστασις 
with its current popular meaning was brought into the field 
of a more progressive terminology, the fundamental notion 
of the term should take on a new shade of meaning: “ That 
which settles or stands firm” in contrast to “that which is 
drained off or passes away” becomes “that which settles or 
stands firm as an objective REALITY” in contrast to “ that which 
flits away under the test of experience, as a MERE APPEAR- 
ANCE.” It is also important for the exegesis of Heb. xi, 1, 
to notice even here that like it (εστι δὲ πίστις ελπιζομενων 


1Cf. Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 581. 


1022 ....... \THE PAULINE PISTIS 


υποστασις, πραγματὼν ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων) this meaning of 
υποστασις aS “REALITY” in contrast to “MERE APPEAR- 
ANCE” is also epistemological. For not only is πίστις 
universally defined by the Greeks in epistemological! terms, 
but also in the second part of Heb. xi, 1, ἔλεγχος ov. 
βλεπομενων obviously gives the verse an epistemological 
setting. Therefore, when the two meanings of ὑποστασις 
thus far found are considered, Heb. xi, 1, would seem to have 
been written in the light of philosophical usage. 

Like Hippocrates, ARISTOTLE (Ὁ. 384 B.c.) in Meteorol. 
II, 3, (144) uses υποστασις in the popular sense of “sedi- 
ment.” In this chapter our author discusses salts. He 
notices that, on the one hand, the sea receives water from 
rivers, which becomes salty only after mixing with the sea 
water; and on the other hand, that the sweetest drinks taken 
into the human system become briny urine in the bladder. 
In both cases, Aristotle thinks that the saltiness is due to the . 
mixture of some solid particles with a fluid. Thus he 
explains the saltiness of sea water: dnXov ott Kav Tn θαλαττη 
TO εκ TNS YS TVYKATAMLYVUMEVOY τω VYPW alTLOV της αλμυ- 
porntos.2 It is in a similar explanation of the saltiness of 
urine that υποστασις occurs: Ev μὲν ovy Ta σωματι γίνεται TO 
TOLOVTOV ἡ της τροφης ὑποστασίς Sia THY ἀαπεψίαν.8 The solid 
residuum of the food (η της τροφης υποστασις) on account of 
its indigestibility (dca rns azreyvav) accounts for the saltiness 
of the urine in the body, just as earthy particles (το εκ τῆς 
yns) are the cause of saltiness (actiov τῆς αλμυροτητος) in 


1 ἐς Religious Faith, even under the Polytheistic form it assumed in Greece, 
implies that what exists and happens in the world depends on certain causes 
concealed from sensuous perception.’’ Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 
i, 52; also Clement of Alexandria says that Epicurus defined πίστις as a 
προληψις διανοιας, and then accepts his definition of προληψις : Επιβοληὴν ere τι 
evaryes, και ἐπι THY Evayn του πραγματος επινοιαν (Stromata, ii, 4, Migne, P. G., 
8, 948 B). 

2 Opera Omnia, III, 580, 6 sq. 

3 Ibid. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 103 


the sea. Ὑποστασίις here means solid residuum? in contrast 
to the transient matter of digestible food. 

In the same book, Meteorol., IV, 5, (7), Aristotle 
(a) again designates sediment by the term υποστασίς, 
(δ) infers that the term is derived from υφίστασθαι, and 
(6) shows that υποστασις as sediment really means either 
“that which is solid” in opposition to ‘‘that which is in a 
liquid state,” or ‘*that which settles” in opposition to “ that 
which is in a gluey state.” In this chapter Aristotle discusses 
the quality of hardness (II nfews ovv περι ρετεον).2 One of 
the means for making things hard is drying or evaporation, 
and it is in the context of this theme that ὑποστασις occurs. 
Our author states that water, or things soaked in water, or 
placed in water, can be dried. The various kinds of liquids 
that can be so dried are wine, urine, whey, and whatever has 
no vroctacty at all, or a moistened uroctactv; but not 
those that are moistened by gluing, for in such the stickiness 
is the cause of tov μη υφιστασθαι μηδεν, as is the case 
with oil and pitch: ὕδατος δ᾽ edn τα τοιαδε, o1vos, ουρον, oppos, 
Kat OXWS οσα μηδεμίαν ἡ βραχειαν Exel ὑποστασιν, μὴ 
δια γλισχροτητα᾽ ενιοίς μεν yap αἰτιον TOV μη υφιστασθαι 
μηδὲν ἡ γλισχροτης, ὠσπερ ἐλαίω, ἡ πιττη.5 What is the 
meaning οὗ ὑυποστασίς in this passage ? 

(a) Undoubtedly, the μηδεμίαν ὑυποστασιν means no 
“solid matter at all” as opposed to “ fluidity.” 

(6) Bpayetav υποστασιν signifies a ‘moistened sedi- 
ment” or a “ moistened solid” as opposed to a “ pure solid.”’ 

(6) The reason why the vrocracis, moistened by gluing, is 
excluded from those mixtures that dry and thus become hard, 
is that the stickiness (yAvoypotns) of such a mixture is the 
cause of “no settling whatever” (του μη υφιστασθαι μηδεν). 


1The term has the same meaning in Meteorol., II, 3, (22); P. A., I, 2, 
(8); III, 9, (6); IV, 2, (7). 

2 Opera Omnia, III, 615, 6. 

3 Op. cit., III, 615, 27. 


104 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


The use of υφιστασθαι is fortunate. For it shows, by 
practically identifying ὑπόστασις with to υφιίιστασθαι, that 
Aristotle, like Hippocrates, before him, derived υὑποστασις 
from ὑφίστασθαι. The fundamental notion of ὑποστασις for 
Aristotle seems to be “solid matter” as opposed to “ that 
which evaporates,” or “that which is solid” as opposed: to 
“that which is fluid and transient.” We certainly have 
here the primitive meaning of ὑποστασις. ' 

Aristotle’s disciple THEOPHRASTES (Ὁ. 371 B.c.) also uses 
υποστασις as a kind of “sediment,” “that which settles at 
the bottom” in contrast to “that which is drained off.” In 
De Odoribus, 6, (29), he describes the manufacture of the 
famous Egyptian perfume: Crushed myrrh liquefied in 
balsam oil is placed over a slow fire. Then the myrrh 
settles down to the bottom just like mud; when the water is 
drained off, this ὑποστασις they press hard by working it: 
συνιζανειν δ᾽ εἰς βυθον την σμυρναν καὶ τούλαιον καθαπερ ἰλυν" 
οταν δὲ τουτο συμβὴ το μεν vdwp αἀπηθειν την δ᾽ υποστασιν 
αποθλιβειν οργανοις.1 Here υποστασις is obviously ‘that 
which settles or stands,” as solid matter, in contrast to “ that 
which is drained off,” as fluid. Again we have the naive 
primitive sense of virogtacis. 

Ὑποστασις, as a philosophical term used by Antiphon, 
Democritus, and Epicurus, to express “REALITY ” in contrast 
to “MERE APPEARANCE” (εμφασις), also found its way into 
the vocabulary of Stoic epistemologists. BorTHUS OF SIDON 
(flourished about 200 B.c.)? seems to be one of the first? 
Stoics to use ὑποστασις in this sense. His teaching has been 


1Theophrasti Eresii Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. F. Wimmer, 
369, 14 sq. 

2Cf. Zeller for the dispute about the exact date of Boethus, Die 
Philosophie der Griechen, III Teil, I Abt., s. 46, (1). 

’Chrysippus before him, in a discussion Περι Torov, has used vrocracis 
probably also in the sense of ‘‘ reality’. For speaking of xpovos as something 
kevov, he says: Kara yap τὴν avrov ὑποστασιν απειρον εστι. (Cf. Diels’ Dozog. 
Graec., 461, 2.) 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 105 


preserved by Stobaeus (Hel. I, 26, 5). In discussing the 
question as to whether the heavens seem to be broader than 
they are high, this observation of Boethus is quoted: The 
expansiveness is received “according to the φαντασιαν," 
not “according to the viroctacw”: BonOos δὲ προς τὴν 
φαντασιαν δεχεται TO AVATTETTTAMEVOY, OV KATA Τὴν υποστασιν.} 
The phenomenon, which everybody knows is only apparent, 
is explained in terms of a contrast between “προς τὴν 
φαντασιαν᾽ and “κατα τὴν vrootaciv.” On the one 
hand, φαντασια 3 for the Stoics means “representation” as 
well as “imagination,” and, on the other hand, the context 
obviously demands a contrast between “what is only 
apparent” and “what is real.” It is evident that υποστασις 
here means “ REALITY” in contrast to “‘ MERE APPEARANCE” 
(φαντασια). 

1 Diels, Doxog. Graec., 868, 12 sq. 

2TuRNER summarizes briefly Stoic epistemology thus: “1. The Stoics 
start with the Aristotelian principle that all intellectual knowledge arises 
from sense-perception. Sense-perception (αισθησις) becomes representation, 
or imagination (¢avrac.a), as soon as it rises into consciousness. During the 
process of sense-perception the soul remains passive, the object producing its 
image on the mind, just as the seal produces its impression on wax. The 
process was, therefore, called a rurwois, although Chrysippus is said to have 
substituted the word ετεροιωσις, alteration of the soul. When the object of 
knowledge is removed from the presence of the senses, we retain a memory 
of it, and a large number of memories constitutes experience (eurepia). 
2. The next step is the formation of concepts. Concepts are formed either 
(a) spontaneously, z.e., when, without our conscious coédperation, several like 
representations fuse into universal notions (mpoAnes Or κοιναί evvoia); OF 
(6) consciously, i.e., by the reflex activity of the mind, which detects 
resemblances and analogies between our representations, and combines these 
into reflex concepts, or knowledge (eriornun). Neither spontaneous nor 
reflex concepts are, however, innate ; spontaneity does not imply innateness. 
8. As, therefore, all our knowledge arises from sense-perception, the value 
to be attached to knowledge depends on the value to be attached to sense- 
perception. Consequently, the Stoics decided that apprehension (xaradnyis) 
is the criterion of truth. That is true which is apprehended to be true, and 
it is apprehended to be true when it is represented in the mind with such 
force, clearness, and energy of conviction, that the truth of the representation 
cannot be denied.’’ Cf. History of Philosophy, pp. 165, 166. 


106 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


For the historical usage of ὑυποστασις, PoLysius (205-123 
B.C.) merits a special consideration, not because he has de- 
veloped the meaning of the term in any way, but rather in 
this, that one of his usages of the term has been seized upon 
and repeated again and again as the standard example of 
the meaning “fiducia” by those exegetes who, following 
Erasmus and Luther, interpret vrooracis in Heb. xi, 1 as 
“confidence.” Besides, with Polybius the «own period — 
the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1—is unmistakably already 
begun.! Hence, we must examine very critically the various 
meanings of ὑπόστασις in the writings of Polybius. 

In Histor. Reliquiae, IV, 50, (10), Polybius uses ὑποστασις 
in the sense of “firmness.” In the previous chapter, our 
author outlines the causes οὗ the war between the Byzan- 
tians and the Rhodians (aided by Prusius), in the prosecu- 
tion of which the Byzantians were chiefly encouraged by the 
promise of help from the powerful prince Achaeus. In the 
chapter in which υὑποστασις occurs, the enthusiastic and 
energetic management of the war by the Byzantians is noted. 
To dampen this enthusiasm and to frighten the Byzantians 
out of the war, the Rhodians assembled a powerful fleet and 
demonstrated their strength in the very sight of Byzantium. 
The Byzantians paid no heed whatever to this naval exhibi- 
tion. In fact they rather pressed still more Achaeus to 
hurry with his forces, and complicated matters for Prusius 
in Bithynia. But the Rhodians, seeing the ὑποστασιν of the 
Byzantians, laid a plan by which they really accomplished 
their purpose: Oz δὲ Podior, θεωρουντες τὴν των Bufavtiav 
υποστασιν, πραγματίκως διενοηθησαν προς to καθικεσθαι 
τῆς προθεσεως.2 The previous meaning of viocraciw as 
“ firmness ” or “ solidity ” would fit into the context of this 


1¢¢That is natural in the professional Atticist, who could not forgive 
Polybius for writing the current common Greek of his time.’’ (Cf. Murray, 
A History of Ancient Greek Literature, p. 892.) 

2 Polybii Historiarum Reliquiae, Graece et Latine, etc., 237. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 107 


passage. For it is clear that ὑποστασις here describes the 
action of the Byzantians whom the Rhodians tried to 
frighten. ‘ Firmness”’ would very aptly describe the action 
of the Byzantians, when the Rhodians vainly tried to intimi- 
date them by the naval demonstration. The wnmistakable 
firmness of the Byzantians is here described by υποστασις. 

We note another example of “firmness.” This, the most 
interesting citation quoted by Polybius, occurs in Histor. 
Reliquiae, VI, 55, (2). It is the usage of υποστασις quoted 
and repeated again and again by most of the exegetes who 
interpret υὑποστασις in Heb. xi, 1 as “fiducia” or ‘confi- 
dence.” ‘The term is found in a description of the classic 
incident of Horatius at the Bridge. That Roman hero was 
engaged with two enemies at the farther end of the bridge, 
when he perceived that many more warriors were coming to 
the assistance of the enemy. Hence, he was apprehensive 
that they would eventually force their way into the city. 
To avert this calamity he turned round to his companions, 
ordered them to the other end of the bridge with instruc- 
tions to destroy the same. While they were employed at 
this work, Horatius, though covered with wounds, still main- 
tained his post, and held back the enemy ; for the enemy 
were dumbfounded, not so much by his power, as by his 
υποστασις and intrepid courage: Ovy ovtw την δυναμιν, ὡς 
τὴν υποστασιν αὑτοῦ καὶ τολμαν καταπεπληγμενων τῶν ὑπε- 
ναντιων. What is the meaning of υὑποστασις here ? 

1. Some have translated ὑποστασις by “ praesentia animi” ?; 
others by “firmness”? ; and many exegetes look upon this 
as the classic example of “ fiducia.” 4 

1 Op. cit., 871. 

3 Ibid. 

3 The General History of Polybius, translated from the Greek by Mr. 
Hampton. 


4Georgius Raphelus, Annotationes Philologicae in N. T., III, 687 sq. ; 
Hugo Grotius, Critict Sacri, VII, Part II, p. 1181; Matt. Polus, Synopsis 
Crit. et Alior., IV, 1354, etc. 


108 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


The interpretation, “ presence of mind,” is excluded not so 
much by the context, which favors a number of interpreta- 
tions, but by what we already know about the usage of 
ὑποστασις. It has nothing to do with “ presence of mind.” 

2. If vrocracis means “ firmness” in the passage under 
discussion, then the thing that dumbfounded the enemy was 
not Horatius’ “presence of mind” to think of destroying 
the bridge (though that meant cutting off his chance of 
escape), but rather, his “unyielding firmness” and intrepid 
courage that inspired a single man to fight so many. Since 
Polybius uses this meaning elsewhere for ὑπόστασις, it must 
be the preferred explanation. 

3. Is there any probability for the interpretation of 
υποστασις in this passage as “confidence”? If υποστασις 
here means “confidence,” then the thing that amazed the 
enemy was the “confidence” of Horatius and his intrepid 
courage. But, we ask, what was the “confidence” of Hora- 
tius all about? The most probable object of such a “ confi- 
dence” that could “dumbfound the enemy” would be the 
“confidence” of Horatius in his ability to fight so many 
men. But the fact that Horatius, after the bridge was once 
broken, plunged into the stream to his death, shows clearly 
that he had no “confidence” to conquer ultimately the 
enemy. MHoratius had no such confidence, nor could the 
enemy reasonably give him credit for having it. It is 
indeed a remarkable bit of evidence to note what Schlatter 
in his classic on “Πίστις in the New Testament” thinks 
about the meaning of υποστασις in this passage of Polybius. 
Although Schlatter himself interprets ὑπόστασις of Heb. xi, 1 
as “ Zuversicht”’ (fiducia) still he is frank enough to observe 
that neither this passage in Polybius nor any other Greek 
usage of υποστασις which he had seen means “ Zuver- 
sicht.” His words are: “Uber diesen verbalen Gebrauch 
(avuToctaros = ‘ without firmness’!) geht ὑποστασις in Stel- 

1 This is the ‘‘ verbalen Gebrauch ”’ referred to here. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 109 


len wie Pol. 6,55,2; 4, 50,10; Jos. Ant. 18, 1, 6, nicht 
hinaus; Zuversicht heisst das Wort in keiner derselben, so 
traditionéll ihre Citation in den Kommentaren als Beleg fiir 
den Begriff Zuversicht geworden ist.”! But if we have 
“ firmness” in Polybius, it is nothing other than a transfer- 
ence of the original meaning concerning material things to 
spiritual things (condition of mind). 

The development of the meaning of ὑποστασις from “ that 
which settles or stands” (sediment) in contrast to “that which 
ts drained off or passes away” to “reality” in contrast to a 
“theoretical proposition of the mind” (em.vola), was already 
indicated in the writings of Antiphon. He used vonua for 
the concept of the mind. In PosEIpoNtIus (b. 135 B.c.) we 
meet with a synonym—e7ivora. The citation is preserved 
by Diogenes Laertius in his Vitae Philosophorum, T, (135). 
Here κατ᾽ επινοίαν is directly contrasted with καθ᾽ υποστασιν. 
Diogenes is discussing the measurement of bodies. One that 
has length, breadth, and depth is called a solid body (στερεον 
copa). Then he takes up the question of the surface (emipa- 
veaa). ‘The surface is defined in two ways, either in a naive 
and realistic way, as the eatremity of a body, or in an abstract 
way, as something having length, breadth, not depth: em- 
havea δ᾽ ecTt TW MATOS TEPAS ἡ TO μηκος καί TAATOS μονον 
exov, βαθος δ᾽ ov.2 Then Diogenes adds that Poseidonius 
in his third book on Heavenly Bodies equates this defini- 
tion of surface in these terms: καὶ κατ᾽ επίνοιαν καὶ καθ᾽ 
υποστασιν. The text follows: ταύτην δὲ Ποσειδωνίος ev 
τρίτω περὶ μετεώρων καὶ κατ᾽ επινοίαν Kat καθ᾽ υποστασιν 
απολείπει.5 In other words, surface in terms of length, 
breadth, and depth (lacking here) is for Poseidonius 
what we would to-day call a mathematical concept (κατ᾽ επι- 


1 Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 582. 
2 Diogenis Laertii de Clar. Philosoph. Vitis etc., Recensuit Cobet, 188, 


15 sq. 
3 Ibid. 


110 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


votay)! in contradistinction to the realistic definition of sur- 
face as the real extremity of a body (cwpatos mepas), which 
the learned Stoic expressed as “that which exists in reality” 
(καθ᾽ νποστασιν). 

In STRABO (b. 68 B.C.) ὑποστασις means something similar 
to ‘‘sediment”’—it is the “*SOLID RESIDUUM” as opposed 
to ““WHAT CAN BE DRAINED OFF” by water and a sieve. 
In Geograph., III, 2, (10) Strabo says that Polybius men- 
tions the silver mines near Alexandria. The process of 
manufacture is briefly summarized as follows: The silver 
bullion they break, and by means of sieves they suspend the 
same in water; they again break the υὑποστασις, and once 
more the mass (strained with running water) is broken: 
Τὴν Se cutpnv βωλον την apyupitiv φησι κοπτεσθαι Kat κοσκι- 
vos εἰς vowp διαττασθαι' κοπτεσθαι δὲ παλιν τας ὑπο- 
στασεις, καὶ παλιν διηθουμενας αποχεομενων τῶν ὑδατων 
κοπτεσθαι.Σ The fifth ὑποστασις they melt, and after the 
lead is drained off they extract the pure silver: ὑποστασιν 
χωνευθεισαν, ἀποχυθεντος του μολιβδου, καθαρὸν Tov apyupov 
efayev.? Ὑποστασις here unmistakably means the “com- 
PACT RESIDUUM”’ as opposed to “THAT WHICH IS STRAINED 
OFF” by the water and the sieve. This usage of the term 
confirms the repeated observation that the fundamental 
meaning of υποστασις is not “ sediment” as sediment, but 
“that which remains firm or is the solid matter” in con- 
trast to ‘that which is drained off.” Of course, this heavier 
matter will sink to the bottom, if any water is left in the 
mixture, and this can be called “sediment.” But it need 
not be what we call ordinarily “sediment.” In this in- 


1Cf. another example of Poseidonius’ use of ἐπίνοια in Diels’ Dozog. 
Graec., 458, 11: διαφερειν Se τὴν ουσιαν της vANS THY ουὐσιαν κατα THY ὑποστα- 
σιν ἐπινοια povov. For the expression κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, cf. Ibid., Index, erivoa; 
also cf. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Index, επινοια. 

2 Strabonis Geographica, Recognovit Augustus Meineke, I, 200, 1 sq. 

8 Ibid. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 111 


stance, ¢.g., the term “sediment” would not sufficiently 
describe ὑποστασις. It is rather a “COMPACT RESIDUUM” 
in contradistinction to that part of the mixture “ WHICH 
CAN BE DRAINED OFF.” Here ὑποστασις seems to be the 
emphasis of the ‘“‘SOLIDITY ” in contrast to the “ FLUIDITY ”’ 
of the mixture. 

As we advance in the κοινὴ period, we see that the old 
contrast between ὑποστασις and εμῴφασις becomes more and 
more general, if not also more emphatic. So in Περι Κοσμου 
(50 B.c.),! VI, 21, we meet υποστασις again as the “ EM- 
PHASIS OF REALITY” in contrast to “‘MERE APPEARANCE.” 
Speaking of the phenomena that take place in the sky dur- 
ing a storm, the author says that, of those things which ap- 
pear in the atmosphere, some are κατ᾽ εμῴφασιν, and some are 
καθ᾽ υποστασιν: Ta μεν εστι κατ᾽ εμφασιν, ta δὲ καθ᾽ υπο- 
otacw.2 Examples of those κατ᾽ εμφασιν are the rainbow 
(cpides), the magic wands (ραβδοι), and the like; whereas 
the examples of the καθ᾽ υποστασιν are the flashes of light- 
ning (ceda), the rumbling thunder (dcarrovres), and the 
comets (xountat), and similar things: Kar εμφασιν μεν ipides 
kat ραβδοι καὶ τα τοιαυτα, καθ᾽ υποστασιν δὲ σέλα TE Kat 
δίαττοντες καὶ κομηταῖ και Ta τουτοις παραπλησια.8 The con- 
trast here between the rainbow, magic wands, and such like, 
which are only appearances (κατ᾽ eudactv), and the flashes of 
lightning, thunder, and the comets which are realities (καθ᾽ 
vrootacty), Shows that υποστασις here signifies that which is 
real in contrast to that which is only apparent, or reality in 
contrast to appearance. 

The witness of Dioporus (flourished 25 B.c.) to the his- 


1¢¢Diese Schrift wird demnach keinenfalls vor der Mitte des ersten vor- 
christlichen Jahrhunderts verfasst sein; wahrscheinlich ist sie aber noch 
etwas jiinger ; doch wird man ihre Entstehung nicht iiber das erste Jahrhun- 
dert nach dem Anfang unserer Zeitrechnung herabriicken diirfen.’’ Cf. 
Zeller, Op. cit., IL Teil, I Abt., 5. 644. 

2 Cf. Aristotelis, Opera Omnia, ITI, 638, 18 sq. 

3 Ibid. 


112 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


tory of ὑποστασις is most interesting, because as we approach 
with him the very milieu of Heb. xi, 1, we notice that the 
philosophical sense of the term has become popular without 
losing its first naive sense. Ὑσοστασις is one of the common 
words in the vocabulary of Diodorus. We shall note only 
the most important instances : 


1. Ὑποστασις = THE “SETTLINGS” (OF A CLOUD) OR 
“TANGIBLE MATTER.” 


Diodorus, like the Greek classical writers, uses ὑποστασις 
in Bibliotheca Historica, I, 18, (7) to signify “that which 
settles down mn a cloud” in opposition to “that which floats 
away.” Here, in speaking of the cause for the increase 
of the waters of the Nile, Diodorus rejects the opinion that 
it is due to snows fallen perhaps in remote parts. For 
all rivers increased by snows give forth cool breezes and 
heavier atmosphere; but concerning the Nile, it alone of all 
rivers has this distinction: neither the vrootaces of cloud 
exist, nor do the breezes become cold, nor does the air thicken: 
περι de Tov Νείλον μονον των ποτάμων οὔτε vepous ὑυποστα- 
σεις υὑπαρχούυσιν ovT avpal ψύυχραι γίνονται ov’ o anp παχυ- 
νεται.1 It is the tangible matter of the cloud (rain-drops) 
that υποστασεις here signify. 


2. Ὑποστασις = “ FOUNDATION ” 


In the same work, I, 66, (6), Diodorus uses ὑποστασις 
to signify “FOUNDATION.” This chapter is devoted to the 
royal tombs of Egypt. After describing their magnificence 
and costliness, he continues: Generally it is said that the 
kings made the υὑποστασιν of the tomb such in expense and 
so great in size, that, if they had not completed the attempt | 
to finish it, no superiority whatever in others remained for 
the prosecution of such work: Καθολον Se τοιαυτην τη πολυ- 


1 Bibliotheca Histor., ed. Fred. Vogel, I, 66, 9 sq. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 113 


τέλεια καὶ τηλικαύτην τω μεγεθει τηνυποστασιν τοῦ ταφοῦυ 
λεγεται ποίησασθαι τους βασίλεις, wor’ εἰ μη TPO TOV συντελεσαι 
την ἐπίβολην κατελυθησαν, μηδεμίαν αν ὑπερβολὴν ετεροῖς προς 
κατασκεύυην εργων απολίπειν.1 Ὑποστασις is here used in the 
sense of “ FOUNDATION,” a meaning quite similar to Hippoc- 
rates’ usage of the term as “ base.” 


3. Ὑσοστασις = “ SETTLING DOWN” (OF PEOPLE) 


In Bibliotheca Historica, XVII, 69, (7), the story of 
Alexander’s triumphant return from the East with Persian 
kings as his captives is told. These latter were so mutilated 
that they excited the pity of the Greeks and the tears of 
Alexander. On the request of the captives, it was decided 
to allow them to return home; but on second thought, the 
Persians, unable to undergo the humiliation of returning to 
their country in such mean condition, determined to remain 
in Greece. Accordingly, |they came to Alexander a second 
time, laid before him their new resolution and their need of 
help for their domestic ὑποστασις: Avo καὶ παλιν εντύχοντες 
τω βασιλει, Kat την ἐδιαν κρίσιν δηλώσαντες, εδεοντο προς Tav- 
TY ὑυποστασιν οἰκείαν παρέχεσθαι την Bonfeav.2 This 
request was granted by Alexander, and each Persian received 
a certain sum of money to “settle down” in Greece. Here 
υποστασις means “settling down” as opposed to “ proceed- 
ing.” This employment of the term also throws some light 
on its usage as “sediment.” For it points out the common 
element — “that which settles down or remains firm” (either 
in the land or in water) as opposed to “that which disap- 
pears or is removed” (in one way or another). 


4. Ὑποστασις = “ REALITY” 


In Bibliotheca Historica, I, 28, (7), Diodorus describes 
the first rulers of Attica. Some of these, it was thought, 


1 Bibliotheca Histor., ed. Fred. Vogel, I, 112, 25 sq. 
2 Bibliothecae Histor., ed. Ὁ. Mullerus, II, 180, 15 sq. 


114 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


came from Egypt and were popularly represented as half- 
serpent and half-man, ¢.e., half-Egyptian and half-Greek. 
Such a one was Peteus, a man of twofold form, concerning 
whose nature the Athenians were unable to give (kata τὴν 
ἰδιαν ὑποστασιν) the true origin: διφυους δ᾽ αὐτου yeyovoros, 
τους μεν Αθηναίους μη δυνασθαι κατα την ἰδιαν ὑυποστασιν 
αἀποδουναι περι της φυσεως ταυτης τας αληθεις αἰτιας.1 What 
does kata την ιἰδιαν υποστασιν mean? The Athenians 
were unable to give the origin of the nature of Peteus ac- 
cording to the proper ὑποστασις. It is indirectly admitted 
that their imagination had discovered tales of his origin and 
nature. But they did not know the real origin. We have 
here the old contrast between reality (υποστασις) and the 
work of the imagination. 

In Bibliotheca Historica, XVI, 33, (1), our author says 
that the Phocaeans, after being defeated by the Boetians, 
were again incited to war by the self-seeking Onomarchus. 
A dream, showing this man the appearance (εμφασιν) of 
great increase and glory, spurred him on to this vrocracw: 
Emnpe δ᾽ avtov προς την vroctaciv ταυτὴν overpos εμφασιν Sous 
peyarns avEnoews τε καὶ So€ns.2 “Mere plan,” as the sense 
of vrrocracts, will not suffice. For he carried out an action. 
Furthermore, there is an obvious contrast between eudaci 
(the mere appearance) in Onomarchus’ dream and ὑποστασιν 
(the realization) to which the dream incited. We have 
here in υὑποστασις the reality of action in contrast to the 
appearance of glory that caused the action. 

We find, then, that Diodorus uses ὑποστασις in the sense 
of “ solid matter,” “foundation,” “ firm settlement,” * reality.” 
The first three meanings evidently are based on the naive 
primitive meaning, “sediment,” with which they have in 
common “ solidity” and “ firmness,” while the last meaning 


1 Bibliotheca Histor., ed. Fred. Vogel, I, 46, 12 sq. 
2 Bibliothecae Histor., E. C. Mullerus, 11, 88, 44 sq. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 115 


represents the developed sense in the advanced terminology 
of the popular philosophy. 

The first use of υποστασις in the clear sense of “* REALITY ” 
was found in the striking contrast between vrrocracts (“ RE- 
ALITY”) and εμφασις or φαντασια (“ MERE APPEARANCE”), 
or in the practically identical contrast between ὑποστασις 
(“REALITY”) and vonua or επινοία (‘THEORETICAL or 
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT”). We noticed also that this 
contrast becomes more and more general, as we approach the 
milieu of Heb. xi,1. This stage in the development of the 
term was certainly reached in the writings of PHILO (b. 25 
B.c.). In De Mundi Incorruptibilitate, our author discusses 
the reasons why the earth cannot be destroyed by fire. In 
his argumentation, Philo first of all distinguishes three ele- 
ments in fire, viz., “live coal” (avOpaé), “flame” (φλοξ), 
and “splendor” (avyn). ‘Then he continues, should the 
material particles of the earth be dissolved or disappear in 
any way, there could be no “live coal,” nor “flame,” nor 
“splendor.” Because the material particles are the food of 
the “flame”; and without the “flame,” there could be no 
avyn, inasmuch as avyn lacks proper vroctacis: ott ὑπο- 
στασιν ἰδιαν ove exye.1 “Splendor” is only a quality of 
“flame”; and so long as the “flame” is REAL, “splendor” 
partakes of that REALITY; but just as soon as the “flame” 
no longer exists, then “splendor” automatically ceases to be, 
z.¢é., it loses its reality. Thus, Philo can only mean that 
avyn has not “its own reality” (cd:av υποστασιν). 

In this same meaning of the term we come now to the most 
interesting passage in the whole historico-literary investiga- 
tion of υποστασις. The following citation of Philo is re- 
markable for these reasons: (a) The passage was written in 
the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1; (0) like our verse, it is 
concerned with the perception of the invisible world ; and 


1 Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia etc., Ed. Thomas Mangey, 
ΤΙ, 505, 365. 


116 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


(6) it is another example of the Greek epistemological con- 
trast between ὑποστασις aS REALITY and εμφασις (here σκία, 
σχηματων οψις, αἰσθητον, ορατον, φαντασια) aS MERE AP- 
PEARANCE. This important passage is found in Quod a Deo 
Mittantur Somnia, c. XXXII. The dream under discussion 
here is the vision of the heavenly ladder vouchsafed . to 
Jacob. The immediate context in which our citation occurs, 
is an exegesis of the words spoken by Jacob, when on awak- 
ening he exclaimed in fear and wonder: “Surely the Lord 
is in this place, and I knew it not. ... This is the gate 
of heaven.” The cause of Jacob’s fear and wonder is then 
analyzed by Philo to be the fact that God, who is incorporeal 
(acwpartos ), was manifested here locally, a phenomenon proper 
to corporeal things (cwpara). But, continues Philo, the 
whole world is the abode of God, in that it manifests His 
Goodness, and in this sense the visible world can be rightly 
called the “Gate of Heaven.” The “invisible world,” of 
which the truth that “God is in this place” is an example, 
is then called “the world knowable to the intellect only” 
(vontos κοσμος) in contrast to the “visible world” (ato Onros 
Kal opwpatos Koopos) which is called the gateway of the 
former. For as men who wish to see cities enter in through 
the gates, so also they who wish to comprehend the invisible 
world (aedn κοσμον) are conducted in their search by the 
appearance of the visible world (vo tov opatov φαντασιας). 
Then follows the reason: the intellectual world is guaranteed 
as a reality by the reality of the visible world of which it is 
the real archetype: O de vontns ὑποστάσεως κοσμος avev 
ηστινοσουν σχημάτων οψεως, povns δὲ δια τε apyeTuTrou Leas 
τε εν τω διαχαραχθεντι προς To θεαθεν avtw εἰδος avev σκίας 
μετακληθησεται.1 What is the meaning οὗ vontns ὑποστασεως ? 

As the passage is rather difficult, it will be well to analyze 
each clause: (1) O de vontns ὑυποστασεῶως κοσμος avev 
ηστινοσουν σχηματων οψεως = the world of the intellectual 


1 Op. cit. I, 649, 14 sq. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 117 


(vontns) REALITY (u7octacews ), without any visible garment 
whatsoever, (2) avev cxias petaxrAnOnoerat = will be recalled 
(reproduced in the intellect) without a perishable external 
appearance, (3) μονῆς = only (a) δια τε apyeturrov ἐδεας = 
through the ideal form of the archetype (Platonic), (6) τε 
ev τω διαχαραχθεντι προς το θεαθεν avtw εἰδος = and in the 
being shaped according to the archetype made visible in it 
(the visible world). 

Ὑποστασις is here described as the INVISIBLE REALITY 
underlying the visible world, and is a synonym for the 
Platonic ἐδεα (also εἰδος.) which is an EXISTING and INVISIBLE 
REALITY; these (the sdea and the viroctacts) become per- 
ceptible to the intellect by the ARCHETYPE MADE VISIBLE 
(in the visible world). The intellectual world is guaranteed 
as a reality by the visible world of which it is the archetype. 
Whence it is clear that two things are here emphasized, 
(1) the REALITY of the INTELLECTUAL and INVISIBLE 
WORLD, and (2) the superiority of this world over the 
VISIBLE WORLD which is produced only by being modeled 
according to the ARCHETYPE. 

This citation is of great importance for the language of 
Heb. xi, 1, not only because it testifies immediately to the 
literary milieu of our verse, but also because we have here 
historical evidence that the old Greek epistemological con- 
trast between vrroctacis (REALITY) and eudaors or φαντασία 
(MERE APPEARANCE) was not strictly limited to a verbal 
formula. For this passage shows that the contrast was also 
used between ὑπόστασις and any synonym of eudacis and 
gavracia, —such as σκία, σχημάτων ois, αἰσθητον, and opa- 
τον. Hence, if the famous contrast is used in Heb. xi, 1, 
ἐλπιζομενων and βλεπομενων would be only synonyms for 
εμφασις or φαντασία or coxa, etc. But more important still 
is the fact that both in Philo and in Heb. xi, 1 we have sub- 
stantially the same general context, viz., the ‘‘ perception of 
the invisible world.” Schlatter thinks that vroctacw epyov 


118 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


αγαθων eyev of Ps. Esd. 8, 36 is a parallel expression for 
Heb. xi, 1: Die naichtsverwandte Parallele zu Heb. xi, 1, 
die mir bekannt ist, gibt Ps. Esd. 8, 16: ‘“Substantiam 
operum bonorum habere.”! But as the Greek text is lost, 
we cannot come to a final conclusion regarding this passage. 
Besides, the general context in these two passages is not 
nearly so similar as between the citation in Philo and 
Heb. xi, 1. 

The use of υποστασις in JOSEPHUS’ (b. 387 A.D.) Antigq., 
XVIII, 1, 6, has been determined by various meanings 
assigned to it by eminent authorities. Johannes Weiss? 
thinks the term means “conviction” ; Schlatter® translates 
it as “ withstanding” ; Dindorf,* as “ animi praesentia ” ; and 
Whiston,® as “resolution.” Josephus is here describing the 
tenets of the followers of Judas the Galilean. They accepted 
the doctrine of the Pharisees, but were especially celebrated 
for their love of Jewish liberty, saying that God alone was 
their Ruler and Lord. Rather than recognize any man as 
their Lord, they stood unmoved when they themselves were 
threatened with death and when their relatives and loved 
ones were threatened with vengeance. “But since the 
unchangeableness of their ὑποστασις for these things (επὶ 
TolovTos),” says Josephus, “is already well known to many, 
I shall speak no further about the matter: Eopaxoox δε τοις 
πολλοῖς TO αμεταλλακτον αὑτῶν τῆς ETL TOLOVTOLS UT O- 
στασεῶως, περαίτερω διελθειν TapedtTov.” ὃ Ὑποστασις in this 
context refers to a firm “sticking to” something invisible, 
which is believed to. be a true reality, viz., the exclusive 
rulership of the Lord. In the light of the contemporary use 
of υποστασις in such contexts (of invisible world in Philo), 


1 Schlatter, Op. cit., 583. 

2 Uhrchristentum, I, 322 (ft. n. (2)). 

3 Op. cit., 582. 

4 Opera, Graece et Latine, Recognovit Guilelmus Dindorfius, I, 695, 11 sq. 
5 The Works of Flavius Josephus, etc., translated by Wm. Whiston, 531. 
6 Op. cit., 695, 11 sq. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 119 


- its meaning here can only be: unshakable realization of the 
invisible fact. | 

In Theologiae Graecae Compendium, c. 9, CORNUTUS 
(flourished 68 A.D.) uses the term in a very illustrative way. 
In the previous chapter, Cornutus recounts the old mytho- 
logical idea that Oceanus (cf. Homer) by a kind of “ mixing ”’ 
is the beginning (apyeyovov) of the existence of all things, 
including the gods. In chapter 9, our author says that Zeus 
is said to be the father of gods and men in a different sense, 
viz., in this that the nature of the world (την του κοσμου 
φυσιν) becomes the cause of the υὑποστασις of these things, as 
fathers generate children: Mera δε tavta adds ο Zevs πατὴρ 
λεγεται θεων και ανθρωπων evar δια το THY του κοσμου φυσιν 
αὐτίαν yeyovevat τὴς τοῦτων υποστασεῶως, ὡς OL TTATEPES 
yevvwot ta texva.t The αἰτίαν τῆς τουτων ὑποστασεως 
clearly means “ the cause of the EXISTENCE of these” (gods 
and men). But the addition “ws ot πατερες yevvwot ta 
texva”’ reminds us of the famous use of ὑποστασις in the 
Patristic literature (cf. Tatian) where the existence in the 
mother’s womb is called the υποστασις of the future reality of 
life, or the anticipation of a future reality. Here, nature is 
the αἰτία of a similar υποστασίς, the guarantee and the reason 
for the existence of gods and men. 

As we approached the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1, we 
noticed the ever-increasing clarity and the more and more 
general usage of the famous contrast between vzoctaats 
(reality) and εμφασις (mere appearance). In the period 
itself, the development reached the crest of precision. We 
are fortunate, indeed, that this literary usage found its 
way into the writings of Plutarch. For in De Placitis 
Philosoph., he not only preserved the words of the Greek 
Philosophers, but he also summed up in his own more 
popular words the famous contrast between ὑπόστασις and 


1 Cornuti Theologiae Graecae Compendium, Recensavit et emendabat 
Carolus Lang, 9, 1 sq. 


120 ; . THE PAULINE PISTIS 


exacts. In introducing the opinions of philosophers (De 
Placitis Philosoph., III, 5, (1)) about the rainbow, PLvu- 
TARCH contrasts those aérial phenomena that are καθ᾽ 
υποστασιν, and others that are κατ᾽ εμφασιν. As examples of 
the first, a rain-storm and a hail-storm are adduced, and as 
examples of the second, the apparent motion of the mainland 
to the mariner, and the rainbow are given. Ta δὲ κατ᾽ 
εμφασιν is then defined as ἐδιαν ove eyovta vrroctaciv. The 
whole text follows: Tov petapoiwv παθων τα μεν καθ᾽ υπο- 
στασιν yiverat ovov ομβρος, yarala, τα Se wat’ εμφασιν, 
ἐδιαν οὐκ EXOVYTA UTOTTACLY aUTiKa γουν TAEOYTOY ἡμῶν ἢ 
ηπειρος κινεισθαι δοκει" εστιν ovy Kat εμφασιν 7 ιρις.} Ὑπο- 
στασιν is “REALITY” in contrast to εμῴφασιν «--- the “MERE 
APPEARANCE.” ‘This conclusion cannot be questioned. For 
the examples adduced are self-evident: The rain-storm 
(ομβρος) is καθ᾽ υποστασιν, and the apparent motion of the 
mainland to the mariner (πλεόντων ἡμῶν ἡ ἡπείρος κινείσθαι 
δοκεῖ) is Kat εμφασιν. One has tangible reality, the other 
has not. Besides, Plutarch adds expressly that things of 
“MERE APPEARANCE” lack PROPER EXISTENCE or REALITY 
(τα δε κατ᾽ εμφασιν diay ove exovta vroctaci). In other 
words, ‘“‘ MERE APPEARANCES” have a kind of existence in so 
far as they APPEAR. But they lack “PROPER REALITY” or 
their own REALITY; they are “mere appearances.” Hence, 
ta καθ᾽ υποστασιν are contrasted with ta κατ᾽ eudaciy, as 
‘REALITIES ” are contrasted with ‘‘ MERE APPEARANCES.” 
The importance of this citation for Heb. xi, 1 is the fact 
that in the very milieu of our verse this popular philo- 
sophical usage of ὑποστασις was summarized in the clearest 
possible terms as “ REALITY ” in contrast to “‘MERE APPEAR- 
ANCE” by the popular historian. The refined Greek of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews makes it very probable that its author 


1 Diels’ Doxog. Graec., p. 371, 28 sq. Cf. also Diels’ Prolegomena, p. 60, 
Doxog. Graec., where he says that these passages are undoubtedly genuine : 
“ Genuina sunt II, 1-4 et 5, 10-12.” 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 121 


was familiar with a usage of ὑποστασις that had a history 
and was so emphatically expressed by a contemporary. 

Even after Heb. xi, 1 was written, it is but natural that 
the old Greek contrast between ὑπόστασις (reality) and 
φαντασία (mere appearance) should still be current. Thus 
D10GENES LAERTIUS (flourished 150 A.D.) contrasts “ THINGS 
AS THEY APPEAR” (φαίνεται tovavta) with “THINGS AS 
THEY REALLY ARE” (καθ᾽ υποστασιν ουτως exer). Diogenes 
is here discussing the need of azrodeéis for πίστις in things 
obscure. He asks, how can things not evident (adda) be 
grasped, if azrodevéis be ignored: Ilws av ovy καταλαμβανοιτο 
Ta αδηλα, της αποδειξεως ἀαγνοουμενης ;} Then follows the 
reason: ἕητείται δ᾽ οὐκ εἰ φαίνεται τοίιάυτα, arr εἰ καθ᾽ 
υποστασιν οὔτως exe,” t.e., “the thing sought is not } iz 
appears to be such but if it really (καθ᾽ υποστασινν is such.” 
It is only another example of καθ᾽ υποστασιν in the sense of 
“IN REALITY.” | 

On the one hand, this notion of υποστασις in epistemo- 
logical contexts as ‘‘ REALITY” in opposition to “MERE 
APPEARANCE,” or simply as “REALITY” is not only the 
current meaning of the term in the xowy, but also the fruit 
of a development whose traces we have pointed out in the 
Greek classical and early κοινὴ writers down to Diogenes 
Laertius. On the other hand, in the history of the exegesis 
of Heb. xi, 1, we have found the same meaning of ὑποστασις. 
The importance of Diogenes Laertius, as a representative of 
the current κοινὴ usage of vrrocraais, and at the same time as 
a contemporary of the author of the Epistle to Diognetus 
(where υποστασις = evdos), of Tatian (for whom υὑποστασις 
= the “emphasis of REALITY” in contrast to NON-REALITY), 
and of Athanagoras (for whom ὑποστασις = the “ guarantee 
of REALITY”), is that his usage of the term forms the 
historico-literary link between the profane and the Patristic 
understanding of ὑποστασις. 

1 De Clar. Philosoph. Vitis etc., IX, 11, Ed. Cobet, 249, 18 sq. 2 Ibid. 


122 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Contemporary with the first interpretation of our text by 
Clement of Alexandria, we find still another meaning of 
vrootacis in the Papyri, and with this evidence we shall 
close the historico-literary investigation of the word. The 
characteristic meaning of the term in the Papyri is “ prop- 
erty,’ and the “ title-deed” to property. The second sense 
is so ingenious that Moulton! has accepted it as the meaning 
of υποστασις in Heb. xi, 1. This famous Papyrus 237 
(A.D. 186) is called the “ Petition of Dionysia.” It is the 
report of a noted legal case in Alexandria. Ὑποστασις 
occurs again and again in the document. To avoid unneces- 
sary technical questions, we shall merely note one of the 
instances of this usage, and then add the pregnant commen- 
tary of Grenfel and Hunt: In Petition of Dionysia, Col. 
VIII, 26 sq., we read: ἐπαρχον ta αντίγραφα των συνγραφων 
Tas των ανδρων υποστασεσιν αντιθεσθαι καὶ Tovto διατα- 
γματι προστεταγεναι ov Kat ἀντίγραφον ὑπεταξα, φανερον ποιων 
κατακολουθεῖν ταῖς του Μεττιου Ῥουφου.3 The Commentary 
follows: “ The υποστασεις were distinct from the ἀπογραφαι, 
which were only one class of the documents concerning 
ownership. Ὑσποστασις, of which the central meaning is 
“substance,” 7.e., property (cf., 6.9.. OPL., CXXXVIII, 
κινδυνω ἐμω Kal TNS ENS ὑποστασεως), is used here for the 
whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a 
person’s property (whether azroypadar, sales, mortgages, etc. ) 
deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of owner- 
ship. By the edict of Mettius Rufus (VIII, 31-43), all 
owners of house or land property were commanded to reg- 
ister it (amroypadeo@ar) within six months of the Edict, and 
in the vrootaces, wives and children had to insert (αντίθεναι 
26, or παρατιθεναι 84) a statement of their claims, if any.” ὃ 


1 Cf. Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, 27. 

2 Egyptian Exploration Fund,— Graeco-Roman Branch, The Oxyrhychus 
Papyri, Part 11, p. 163. 

3 Ibid., II, 176. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 123 


This usage of ὑποστασις in the sense of ““ TITLE-DEED ”’ is 
characterized by two elements: (a) ““ἃ document deposited 
in the archives,” and (6) “a document forming the evidence 
of possession.” ‘ Deposited” and ““ Evidence of possession” 
are readily recognized ideas long current under υὑποστασις ; 
and the rest is legal atmosphere accounted for by the fact 
that the term found its way into the courts. For we can 
still see in ‘‘ TITLE-DEEDS,” though obscurely, the first two 
Greek notions current under ὑποστασις : (a) “ That which 
stands or is stationary” (“ἃ document deposited in archives”) 
in contrast to “that which is drained off, or is fleeting ” 
(other unstable expressions of ownership); (6) “ REALITY” 
(‘evidence alone accepted for REAL possession ”) in contrast 
to “MERE APPEARANCE” (other flimsy evidence not ac- 
cepted for REAL possession ). 

It is also possible that the idea of “ guarantee” in υποστα- 
σις used as “TITLE-DEED” may be derived more’ directly 
from a similar idea in the famous contrast between καθ᾽ 
ὑποστασιν (“IN REALITY”) and κατ᾽ εμφασιν (“MERELY IN 
APPEARANCE”). For the reason why some things (as, 6.9.» 
hail-storms) were called καθ᾽ ὑποστασιν, and other things 
(as, e.g., the rainbow) were classed κατ᾽ εμφασιν, was that 
the former struck the senses corrected by experience with a 
“guarantee” for the “reality” of the things perceived, 
whereas the latter did not. 


Summary and Valuation 


We may now summarize the results of our historico-literary 
investigation : 

I. Ὑποστασις = “ Firm or solid matter” : 

a. “Sediment” in contrast to “that which is drawn off or 
passes away”: Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastes, Strabo, 
Diodorus. 

6. “Firmness” — “foundation”: Hippocrates, Polybius, 
Diodorus. 


124 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


11. Ὑποστασις = “ reality.” 

a. “Tangible matter” in contrast to “idea” or “image”: 
Antiphon, Poseidonius. 

ὃ. “Reality” in contrast to “mere appearance”: Democ- 
ritus, Epicurus, Boethus, Philo, Diodorus, Plutarch, J ose- 
phus (“realization”), and eg: base Laertius. 

ὁ. “Guarantee of reality”: Cornutus, Polybius, and Papy- 
rus 287 (“ title-deed”’). 

The development of υὑποστασις is evident. No. I points to 
the naive and realistic world of thought; No. II to the use 
of the term in a higher philosophical language. The funda- 
mental idea, however, even in No. I is “ reality.” 

The fact that Hippocrates and Aristotle in their actual 
usage of υποστασις employed it as a conjugate of υφιστασθαι 
confirms historically the philological assertion that this noun 
is derived from this form of the verb. Hence, vrrooracis was 
very probably first of all used to signify “that which stands 
or settles” as opposed to “that which passes away or is 
drained off.” The further signification of the term (“firm- 
ness” and “ foundation”) represents a natural development 
of the original notion of υὑποστασις. 

But the sense of υποστασις as “ REALITY ” in contrast to 
εμφασις (“*MERE APPEARANCE”) with its derived usages, — 
is it a development of the original meaning of the word, or 
is it derived from a different stem? Hatch thinks, “the 
term ὑποστασις is the conjugate of the verb υφίσταναῖι, which 
had come into use as a more emphatic form than eva.” 1 
Hatch does not go into the question as to whether ὑποστασις 
is derived from the active form of the verb (vdioravar) or 
the middle and passive form (υφιστασθαι). Vaughan 2 
derives it from ὑφίστασθαι. One thing is certain, viz., that 
υποστασις was first used as a conjugate of υφιστασθαι in the 

1 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages on the Christian 


Church, 275. 
2 Cf. Chas. Vaughan, Προς E8pacous, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 125 


sense of “that which settles or stands” as opposed to “ that 
which passes on or can be drained off.” And if there is a 
probability that υποστασις in the sense of REALITY in con- 
trast to MERE APPEARANCE is a development from this usage 
of the term, this derivation is to be preferred to one from a 
new verb-form. We have already pointed out that such a 
development is natural. For just as the original meaning 
of υποστασις was modified to signify ‘foundation,’ when 
used in a context concerned with *“‘tomb construction,” so 
also the fundamental sense of the term will take on a new 
shade of meaning, when brought into the field of Greek 
epistemology (that field in which it was first used to signify 
“REALITY” ). The original sense, “that which stands or 
settles” as opposed to ‘that which passes on or can be 
drained off,” becomes in epistemology “that which stands or 
settles” for the perceptive faculties (REALITY) in contrast to 
“that which flits away under the test of experience” (MERE 
APPEARANCE). Therefore, it may be regarded as certain 
that the meaning of υποστασις as REALITY is a development 
of the original sense of the term. If we can trust Plutarch 
and Stobaeus for preserving the very words of Antiphon, 
Democritus, and Epicurus, this development was achieved 
at a time almost contemporaneous with the extant instances 
of its usage in the original sense by Hippocrates and Aris- 
totle. Be this as it may, we are sure that this development 
was actually reached in Polybius; after him it is common 
in the Stoic and «own writers, becoming ever clearer and 
more general in the literary milieu of Heb. xi, 1. 

As we have already indicated, the usage of υὑποστασις to 
signify ‘ TITLE-DEED’’— ἃ document deposited in the 
archives, and forming an evidence of possession” — contains 
at least vaguely the two preceding senses of the term. ‘“ De- 
posited” is an element in ὑποστασις common to “ sediment,” 
and “an evidence of possession” is akin to the notion of the 
word in epistemology. Although Moulton! accepts this 

1 Cf. Moulton, From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, 27. 


126 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


meaning of ὑποστασις as the interpretation of the word in 
Heb. xi, 1, yet we do not go so far. For the document con- 
taining this meaning of the term is dated only in 186 A.p., 
and, even admitting that it very probably was current long 
before that date, still we are not hereby historically certain 
that this was a current meaning of the word at the time the 
Epistle to the Hebrews was written, especially since the 
Patristic literature shows another interpretation. 

We come now to the important question: What is the 
value of this historico-literary investigation of the pivotal 
word in Heb. xi, 1 for the interpretation of that text? First, 
independently of the various extant interpretations of this 
verse, we may say that this investigation has established his- 
torically that certainly two senses of ὑπόστασις, --- ‘ REAL- 
ITY” in contrast to “MERE APPEARANCE” and “that which 
stands or settles” as opposed to “that which passes away or 
can be drained off,” — and probably a third meaning (υπο- 
στασις = “ title-deed”) were current when Heb. xi, 1 was 
written. The nice literary usage in the Epistle to the He- 
brews (acknowledged by all!) demands that the author be 
acquainted with at least the first two senses of υποστασις, 
since they were already firmly anchored in the κοινὴ vocabu- 
lary. And the fact that the author has not indicated in the con- 
text of the Epistle some peculiar, new, and non-current usage 
of the term, makes it imperative that υποστασις in Heb. xi, 1 be 
understood in one of the senses current at his time. Further- 
more, without going into the details of the context of our verse, 
and with only the general context in mind (which undoubt- 
edly is “the perception of the invisible world”), we must 
say that, of the two meanings of ὑποστασις certainly current 
and known to the author of the Epistle, that one was prob- 
ably chosen which respects the history of the term, viz., 


1Cf..J. R. Willis, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 336: ‘* The evidence 
of wide culture shows throughout the Epistle. This characteristic has been, 
and is, universally acknowledged.’’ 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 127 


“ REALITY ” in contrast to “‘MERE APPEARANCE.” For in an 
epistemological context, υποστασις was long used in this sense. 
Secondly, of the various interpretations of Heb. xi, 1 now 
extant, this investigation strongly approves the Patristic 
exegesis which understood ὑποστασίις in the sense of “ REAL- 
ITy”; and it also shows the untenableness of the interpre- 
tation originated by Erasmus, popularized by Luther, and 
which has become to-day the more common interpretation, 
— ἐ.6.. ὑυποστασις = “CONFIDENCE.” For the Greek Patristic 
interpretation, written by men whose mother-tongue was the 
κοινὴ διαλεκτος, understood vzrocracis in a meaning that was 
current during that Greek period —a sense which finds a 
place in the history of the term as the most appropriate 
meaning for the context. On the other hand, the interpre- 
tation of υποστασις in our verse as “confidence” not only 
appeared in history, when the coun διάλεκτος was dead, thus 
finding no place whatever in the history of the word, but 
also the much repeated citation of Polybius (Relig. Histor., 
VI, 55, 2), purporting to be the convincing proof that vzro- 
στάσις commonly meant “confidence” in the κοινὴ διάλεκτος, 
turns out to be any meaning of the term save “confidence.” 
Schlatter also, we repeat, in spite of the fact that he inter- 
prets ὑποστασις in Heb. xi, 1 as “ Zuversicht,” brands as 
erroneous the aforesaid contention which by mere force of 
constant repetition has become traditional: “Uber diesen 
verbalen Gebrauch (ανυποστατος = ‘lacking endurance’) 
geht νποστασις in Stellen wie Pol. 6,55, 2; 4, 50,10; Jos. 
Ant. 18, 1, 6, nicht hinaus; Zwversicht heisst das Wort in 
keiner derselben, so traditionéll ihre Citation in den Kommen- 
taren als Beleg fiir den Begriff Zuversicht geworden ist.” 1 


Il. In Breuicat LITERATURE 


After having found the meaning of ὑποστασις in profane 
Greek literature, it will be of some interest to ascertain its 


1 Cf. Schlatter, Op. cit., 582. 


128 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


sense in Biblical Greek writings generally, before applying 
the results of our historico-literary investigation to Heb. xi, 
1. Of course, the meaning of υποστασις in Biblical literature 
cannot have a determining value (independent of Greek lit- 
erature) for the interpretation of Heb. xi, 1, simply because 
the literary source for the Greek Biblical writers was the 
Hellenic world. 


1. ὕποστασις in the LXX 


The term occurs twenty times in the LXX, “as the ren- 
dering of almost as many Hebrew words.”! This fact alone 
should put us on our guard against too hurriedly concluding 
that the real sense of ὑποστασις in the LXX can be readily 
found by a mere mechanical process of equating the Hebrew 
equivalent. Of these twenty usages of the term, one is in 
Wisdom (xvi, 21), and the other nineteen have Hebrew 
equivalents which are reducible to thirteen roots. In these 
usages of the word Schlatter sees a common element: “Im 
Gebrauch der Septuaginta ist zunachst diess deutlich, dass 
ihr der Begriff Stehen im Wort die Hauptsache ist.”2 Yet 
in this we cannot agree with him. 

To arrive at a clear understanding regarding the meaning 
of vrocracis in the LXX, it will be necessary to examine 
some examples of its usage. In those cases where υποστασις 
has been used to translate more than one form derived from 
the same Hebrew root, it will suffice to note only one instance 
of the same. 

Following the order in the LXX Concordance of Hatch 
and Redpath, we shall first take up the meaning of υπο- 
στασις in Ps. lxxxviii, 48 (another form derived from the 
same Hebrew root is found in Ps. xxxviii, 5), where the 
Hebrew equivalent is 397 cr, προ. to dig, to hide, etc.). In 
this Psalm the perpetuity of David’s reign is set forth in the 


1C. Vaughan, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 7. 
. 2 Op. cit., 582. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 129 


first 88 verses. ‘Then with the 39th verse the evils that are 
to afflict him are described. The verse in which υὑποστασις 
occurs (vers. 48) is composed of the words that well up in 
David’s heart, as he writhes under these afflictions : Μνησθητι 
TIS ἡ UTTOTTAGLS μου" μὴ γαρ MATALWS εκτίσας TaVTAaAS TOUS 
vious τῶν avOpwrav: Remember what my ὑποστασις is, for 
not without reason hast Thou made all the sons of man. The 
Hebrew equivalent son demands the meaning “duration,” 
“life,” “age.” If the LXX translator transformed it into 
υποστασις, which never in its whole history shows such a 
sense, it is evident that he had no discernment of the term. 

In Deut. xi, 6, vrocracis equates D>? (x. DIP or OD", to 
rise, exist, remain firm). In this passage the author warns 
the Jews that they ought to serve God better for having 
witnessed the punishments which He inflicted upon the 
Egyptians and the wicked Jews. Ὑποστασις occurs in the 
reference to the punishment of Dathan and Abiron:; Ous 
ανοιξασα ἢ γὴ TO στομαᾶ AVTNS Κατέεπίεν αὐτοὺς KAL τοὺς οἰκοὺς 
αὐτῶν καὶ TAS σκὴνας αὑτῶν καὶ πασαν αὐτῶν Τὴν VTO- 
στασιν τὴν μετ᾽ αὑτων εν μεσω παντος Ισραηλ: The earth 
opening her mouth swallowed Dathan and Abiron and their 
houses and tents and all their υποστασις in Israel. Trro- 
στασις here is correctly rendered in correspondence with its 
Hebrew equivalent as that which “ remains ” or “ exists,” — 
it expresses “ possession,” in which sense it is familiar to us 
from both our Patristic study and the historico-literary 
investigation of ὑποστασις in the Greek world of thought. 

In Jer. x, 17, we read: Luvnyayev εἕξωθεν την ὑυποστασιν 
σου κατοίκουσαν ev ἐκλεκτοῖς. ‘This is indeed a rather curious 
translation of the Hebrew: “i¥92 ‘navn N32 PIS) "BO 
Gather from the earth thy belongings, thou that dwellest in 
asiege. Ὑποστασις translates the Hebrew 933 which means 
“baggage,” “ belongings,’ “ possessions.” Accordingly, it is 
used in about the same sense as in the preceding verse. 

The Hebrew od (x. ἼΩΝ, to stand) in Ps. lxviii, 3, is 


130 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


rendered in the LXX by υὑποστασις. In this Psalm the 
“just one” declares the greatness of his sufferings: ‘Save 
me, O God, for the waters have come even unto my soul” 
(vers. 2). Our verse follows immediately: Everaynv εἰς 
ttuvy βυθου, και ove εστιν vToctacis : I am sunk in the mud 
of the deep, and there is no vroctacis = ΩΣ. “ὭΣ = 
“standing place” reminds us of the meaning of varogracis = 
“firmness ” of our philological examination. 

In Deut. i, 12, υποστασις has been used to translate NWI 
(r. NW, to bear, etc.). Here Moses reminds the Jews of the 
causes that led to his associating with himself some of their 
number in the government of the people. One reason was 
the increasing population (vers. 10) and the consequent 
multiplication of the duties of administration. Hence, Moses 
says: Πως δυνησομαι povos θερειν Tov KoTrov ὑμων καὶ τὴν 
υποστασιν ὑμων και τας αντίλογιας υμων : How can I alone 
bear your trouble, your ὑποστασις, and your differences ? 
Ὑποστασις; as the translation of NW = “burden,” has no 
parallel in the Hellenic use of the term. 

Forms derived from 22° (to set, establish) are the most 
frequent equivalents for ὑποστασις in the LXX. It will 
suffice to cite but one instance, I Kings, xiii, 28, ‘The 
verse takes up the account of the Philistine position. In 
v. 17 ff., the plunderers are described. Here we are told 
that the garrison, or permanent guard left in the camp, pushed 
forward to the edge of the pass of Michmash.”! The LXX 
reads: Καὶ εξηλθενεξυποστασεως των αλλοφύυλων τὴν EV τω 
περαν Μαχμας. Instead of εξ ὑποστάσεως the Hebrew reads 
simply 3% = “permanent camp.” The well-established 
sense of the term in the Hellenic world as “that which set- 
{165 down ” in contrast to “that which is transient,” is evident 
in the usage of ὑποστασις = AX here. For in the words of 
Smith, S38’ here, as in xiv, means “the soldiers who were 


1Cf. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Sam- 
uel, 102. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 131 


in occupation of the camp, in distinction from those who 
went out on the various expeditions.”+ It is the familiar 
contrast between “that which settles down” in opposition 
to “*that which is transient.” ‘The other instances, where 
vroctacts translates Hebrew forms derived from the root 
=x", are the following: (hi) I Kings, xiii, 21; (hoph.) (Na. 
ii, 7); S80 (I Kings, xiv,4); and ΠΏ (Ez. xxvi, 11). 

In Jer. xxiii, 22, LXX renders ‘ND (r. "TD", to set down) 
by υποστασις, and in verse 18 by ὑποστημα. The Greek 
follows: Καὶ εἰ ἐστησαν ev Tn ὑποστασει μου CD23), και εἰ 
ηκουσαν των λογων μου, καὶ τον λαον μου αν ἀπεστρεφον avTous 
απὸ τῶν πονηρων επιτηδευματων avtwy: If they stood in my 
υποστασις, and had they heard my voice, they would have 
turned my people from their evil ways and wicked deeds. 
The Hebrew equivalent for urocracis is “ΠΩ = familiar talk, 
consideration, consultation. This idea certainly has nothing 
to do with the ὑποστασις of the Greek world that we inves- 
tigated. 

Ὑποστασις μου has been used by the LXX interpreters in 
translating “MP (Pu. from OP, to build) in Ps. cxxxviii, 
15. In this Psalm God’s special providence over His ser- 
vants is praised. We encounter God’s Spirit everywhere 
(vers. 6), in heaven and in hell (vers. 7), in the sea (vers. 8), 
and even in darkness (vers. 11 and 12). “For Thou hast 
protected me from my mother’s womb” (vers. 13). Then 
occurs our verse: Ουκ εκρυβὴ To οστουν μου amo σου o εποι- 
ῃησας εν κρυφη: και ηυποστασις μοῦ εν τοις κατώτατω Τῆς YNS- 
The Hebrew of the latter sentence follows: NYANND "MP4 
Y 8. The Greek verse may be translated: Not hidden is 
my bone from Thee, which Thou madest in secret, and my 
υποστασις in the depths of the earth. The Hebrew reads 
quite differently. But there is no doubt that ev τοῖς κατω- 
τάτω τῆς γης translates PIS MVAMNS, and ὑποστασις μου 
equates the verb “ΠΣ (“I was diligently fashioned in the 

1 Op. cit., 108. 


132 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


womb of my mother”). This shows that the LXX inter- 
preters did not translate the Hebrew literally at all. How- 
ever, υποστασις in reference to aie points to something 
that is made, which the LXX text translates freely “ exist- 
ence.” It reminds one somewhat of the Greek use of the 
word vzroctacis = existence, as a predicate of reality. 

The meaning of ὑποστασις in Ps. xxxviii, 8 is of special 
interest, because it has so often been adduced as an example 
of “ fiducia”: Καὶ νυν tis ἡ ὑπομονὴ μου; οὐχί o Kupsos; Kas 
n ὑποστασις μου παρα σοι εστιν. From the Greek point 
of view we should translate this verse as follows: And now 
who is my endurance? Is it not the Lord? And my exist- 
ence is with Thee. Also “firmness” would be possible. 
But the Hebrew original (of which the LXX gives a free 
translation) demands another interpretation. It reads: 
Ram 7 “HMA INS ΠΡ ΠΏ ΠΕΡῚ The verbal expression 
‘Mp2 is translated by the nominal phrase tis ἡ ὑπομονὴ 
μου; Ὑποστασις μου obviously translates ‘nonin (x. om, to 
wait, expect, hope), which is a synonym for ‘Tip. It is 
evident that here ὑποστασις is used to render a Hebrew verb 
of hoping, expecting, confiding, —a fact that reflects again 
the lack of familiarity with the use of the term in the Greek 
world. 

In Ez. xliii, 11 νποστασις is used in the LXX to trans- 
late 713M (either from fi>, to stand, or exist, or from f2H, to 
set right, adjust). The “son of man” is here commanded 
by the Lord to show the Jews the dimensions of the temple: 
Kau dtaypawers tov οἰκον καὶ τας εξοδους αὐτου Kat την υὑπο- 
στασιν αὐτου ΟΖ). The LXX translates MIM by 
υποστασις avtov. The Vulgate has “descriptio.” In fact, 
ΓΖ means arrangement, equipment. The context would 
suggest “ foundation.” 

Ὑποστασις has been used to render two forms derived! 
from the root MP (to twist, bind ; and figuratively, to hope). 
These instances have also been frequently cited as examples 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 133 


where vrroctacis means “fiducia.” It will suffice to inves. 
tigate only one of the cases (Ez. xix,5). Here Israel is com- 
pared to a lioness, bringing up her young in the company of 
elder lions. One such whelp thus trained became a lion, 
“and he learned to catch the prey, and to devour men” 
(vers. 3). This one the nations caught after a bloody 
struggle, and brought him in chains to Egypt. Hereupon 
follows the verse in which υὑποστασις occurs: Kaz edev ore 
aATOCTAL AT aUTNS, aTwWAETO ἡ ὑποστασις avTns. This may 
be translated thus: And when she saw that he was dragged 
away from her, her ὑποστασις was destroyed. Because “he 
was dragged away from her,” her vrroctacis was destroyed. 
The Hebrew term ΕἸΣΙ which is rendered in Greek by 
υποστασις avtns, is derived from ‘2, which is, as we saw 
above in connection with Ps. xxxvili, 8, a synonym for 
br, and means “to expect, hope.” Hence, we have another 
example, where the LXX renders “expectation” by υπο- 
στασις --- ἃ meaning that contradicts all we know of its use 
in the Greek world. 

The use of υποστασις Swns in Jud. vi, 4 to equate MM = 
“means of subsistence” reminds us somewhat of the Hellenic 
use of the term in the sense of “foundation,” “support.” 
The Madians and the Amalecites were sent to punish Israel. 
After Israel had sown the fields, these enemies with hordes 
of men and herds of cattle pitched their tents on the fields, 
and ‘like locusts ” devoured everything: Kav ov κατελείποντο 
υποστασιν Cans ev Tn yn Ισραηλ: Sens ΓΘ TY ΝΣ ΝΟ] 
They did not leave an υὑποστασις of life in the land of Israel. 

In Job xxii, 20, “loss of ὑποστασις" is equated by IM 
which expresses “destruction”: Ex pn ηφανισθὴ ἡ υπο- 
στασις αὑτῶν, Kal TO καταλειμμὰ αὐτων καταφαγεται 
πυρ. The Hebrew follows: 7928 DAN USP WMD) Xovowx 
ws. The LXX translates again very freely, so much so 
that the Hebrew equivalents can hardly be recognized. 
It suffices for us to notice that the Hebrew word for “ de- 


134 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


struction ” is expressed by the “ disappearance of uvrrocraats ” 
in the LXX, which suggests “essence” or “existence” as 
the meaning of υποστασις. 

The only use of ὑποστασις in the LXX, not having a 
Hebrew equivalent, is Wis. xvi, 21. Here the author con- 
trasts the “strange waters, hail, and rain” (vers. 16), which 
God let down upon Israel’s enemies, with the “food of 
angels prepared without labor” (vers. 20), the manna which 
He rained upon the Jews. Speaking of this manna, the 
author goes on to say: H μεν yap vroctacts cov την onv 
γλυκυτητα πρὸς texva ενεφανισει. This may be translated 
thus: For Thy υποστασις shows Thy sweetness toward Thy 
children. Ὑποστασις is to be referred to the manna, since 
the manna is the vrootacis that God sent. It is difficult to 
decide the meaning of the term here. Perhaps “ substance ” 
expresses best what the author wishes to say. 

To put in clear and striking relief the result of our Sep- 
tuagintal investigation, we must restate the ideas which 
we found connected with υὑποστασις : life, duration of life, 
possession (or one’s belongings), firmness, burden, camp, 
consultation, existence, confidence, arrangement, subsistence 
of life, essence, substance. Although a number of these 
renditions show more or less similarity with the use of 
υποστασις in the Greek literature (like possession, firmness, 
belongings, existence, essence, substance), yet we can safely 
say that the LX X writers are almost completely ignorant of 
the principal and primary meaning of the word vzoctacis, 
as we found it in the Hellenic writers. Septuagintal usage 
of υποστασις is very loose, and most frequently it is em- 
ployed as a kind of vox media, expressing various meanings. 
We may here quote Deissmann, who goes to the very heart 
of LXX usage when he says: “The meaning of a Septua- 
gint word cannot be deduced from the original which it 
translates or replaces, but only from other remains of the 
Greek language, especially from those Egyptian sources that 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 135 


have lately flowed so abundantly. Even Professor Blass, I 
am glad to say, took up this position at last—a position 
which, unfortunately, is not conceded at once, but has to be 
slowly won by combat with an unmethodical school. Tc 
give one example: Baljon in his Lexicon gives as meanings 
for the Septuagint word apxev@os ‘olive tree’ and ‘cypress 
tree.’ The Hebrew words for these two trees are certainly 
sometimes rendered apxevos by the translators, and so 
Baljon concludes that in the language of the Septuagint, 
apxevOos has these meanings. No, says Blass! very truly, 
apxevOos means ‘juniper, and ‘a wrong translation does 
not turn the juniper into an olive or a cypress.’ There can 
be no doubt about that.”2 So also we can say: Ὑποστασις 
means “reality,” and a wrong translation cannot turn 
“ reality” into “life,” “ burden,” or “ fiducia.” 

It may be more interesting to learn the attitude of the 
New Testament writers toward ὑποστασις. Do they share 
the confusion of the LXX-writers, or have they a better 
knowledge of the Greek terminology ? 


2. Ὑποστασις in the New Testament 


Ὑποστασις occurs only five times in the New Testament : 
twice in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and thrice in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hence, in the New Testament 
it is a Pauline word. 

In the II Epistle to the Corinthians, both usages of the 
word are in connection with “boasting”: (a) In ix, 4 with 
the idea of ‘“boasting,”® and (6) in xi, 17 with the term 
itself: ev Tavtn Tn ὑπόστασει της καυχήσεως. 

In the first instance, Paul reminds the Corinthians about 


1 Grammatik des Neutest., Griechisch, col. 44. 

2 The Philology of the Greek Bible, 89, sq. 

3 Although even here some MSS. add τῆς καυχήσεως : X°DCEKLP al pler 
Syrttr arm go Chr® Thdrt Dam. Cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum 
Graec., etc., II, 605. 


136 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem (vers. 1) which 
they had apparently promised to have ready for a long time 
previously. For (in vers. 2), he tells them plainly that he 
had boasted (xavy@par) to the Macedonians about the 
Corinthians’ collection. Even in Achaia their emulation 
“hath provoked many” (vers. 2). The author continues: 
‘¢ Now I have sent the Brethren that the thing we boast of 
concerning you, be not made void in this behalf, that you 
may be ready” (vers. 3). Then follows a reference to the 
shame that would be not only his, but theirs also, if, accom- 
panied by the Macedonians, he came to Corinth to find them 
unprepared in the matter of the collection: Myzras eav ἐλθω- 
ow συν enor Maxedoves καὶ evpwotv vas atrapacKevac Tous, 
καταισχυνθωμεν nes (Va μη λεγωμεν UES) EV TH UTOTTA- 
σει ταυτη. What does vroctacis here mean? Any one 
of such current senses of the term as “reality,” “ pledge,” 
“‘cuarantee,” or “anticipation of reality,’ would satisfy the 
context. The natural translation is “in this matter.” Tan- 
gible material or matter is, as we know, the fundamental 
meaning of ὑποστασις in the naive language. Since it cor- 
responds most accurately with the context, we have no right 
nor reason to abandon this explanation demanded by the 
history of the term. 

Furthermore, since “matter” in this Pauline context is 
not used as a materially tangible object, but in the higher 
sense of “affairs,” we have in the English word “ matter” 
the best translation. For it illustrates most aptly how the 
same word can signify material and intellectual reality. Any 
other meaning save reality (matter) for υποστασις in our 
passage may fit the context, but is no strict interpretation. 

The second instance (11 Cor. xi, 17) is even more interesting, 
since so many commentators insist on interpreting ὑποστασις 
in the sense of “confidence.” Here Paul is forced to com- 
mend himself and “boast” of his Apostolic labors, lest the 
Corinthians should be imposed upon by “false teachers.” 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 137 


Though he repeatedly admits “boasting ” to be “ foolishness,” 
yet he does not hesitate to “ boast,” when ‘false teachers” 
are winning over the Corinthians by “ boasting,” for he has 
more reason to “boast” than they. Hence, he says: O λαλω, 
ov κατα Κυριον λαλω, arr ὡς ev αφροσυνη, ἐν TaUTH TY 
υποστασει της καυχησεως: What I speak now I speak 
not according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this 
υποστασις of boasting. What does ὑποστασις here mean? 

The original meaning of vmocracis (matter) again an- 
swers the demands of the context. Hence, ‘‘in this matter 
of boasting” must be regarded as the correct translation. 
In the light of the context and the history of υποστασις, 
the interpretation “fiducia,” introduced by dogmatic tend- 
ency, cannot be sanctioned at all. 

The remaining three usages of ὑποστασις in the New Tes- 
tament occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews (i, 3; iii, 14; 
xi, 1). The meaning of ὑποστασις in the first instance (Os 
ὧν atravyacpua της δοξης Kal YapaKkTnp της ὑυποστασεῶως 
avTov), aS a synonym of οὐσία, is so generally accepted by 
commentators that we shall not linger to give a special 
exegesis of the same. For, this interpretation agrees with 
the context and finds many parallels in contemporary Greek 
literature. As regards the latter consideration, we may 
note the excellent summary by Bigg, wherein he shows that 
υποστασις and ovota were practically synonymous terms in 
contemporary usage : “ The two expressions (υποστασις and 
ovata) were current in the philosophy of the time, and mean 
precisely the same thing.”! Hatch, also, says that “ vzro- 
στασις is the conjugate of the verb υφισταναι, which had 
come into use as a more emphatic form than ewva.”? 
Even after the term was more clearly differentiated from 
ovova, in the Trinitarian and Christological controversies, 


1 The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 164. 
2 The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 
275. 


138 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Athanasius still writes: “H δὲ ὑυποστασις ovota eoti, Kat 
οὐδὲν ado σημαιίνομενον exer ἡ avTo To ov.” 1 But, it must 
not be forgotten that St. Paul in his former usage of the 
term laid stress on the very reality, so that υποστασις here 
means the “ real essence.” 

The sense of υποστασις in Heb. iii, 14 is the bone of much 
contention. First, let us give the text: Meroyou yap rou 
Χριστου yeyovapev, εανπερ THY ἀρχηντης UTOTTATEWS Mex pl 
τέλους βεβαίαν κατασχωμεν. This text is supported by the 
overwhelming weight of critical evidence. The interesting 
variant is that of A, f, vg.,and Jerome (Ep. Damas., 3,517), 
which qualifies ὑποστάσεως by αὐτου. ‘That Heb. iii, 14 is a 
very important text for the understanding of ὑποστασις in 
Heb. xi, 1, is evident both from the fact that Heb. iii, 14 
deals with πίστις (e.g., Chrysostom says: τὸ ἐστίν ἀρχὴ τῆς 
vTocTacews ; τὴν πίστιν λεγει 2), and from the general 
context. Godet has clearly summarized the gist of this 
Epistle in three short sentences: ‘‘ Break loose from Judaism. 
Be wholly his who is better to you than the angels (chaps. i- 
iil, 1),? better than Moses (iii, 1-iii, 19)? or Joshua (iv),® 
better than Aaron and his priesthood (v-x).* Be all to 
_ Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal reality of all the good 
things of which Judaism offers you only the shadow.”* The 
one clear burden of the author’s message to the Jewish 
converts to Christianity is, “Do not apostatize.” The reasons 
against this possible apostasy are given in the didactic part 
of the Epistle G-x) so clearly summarized above by Godet. 
In concluding each reason, the author of the Epistle exhorts 
briefly and incidentally against apostasy, which exhortation 
is summarized and developed in the practical part of the 
letter (xi-xili). Heb. iii, 14 occurs in the brief exhortation 


1 Migne, P. G., 26, 1086 B. 

2Cf. Tischendorf, Novum Test., Graec., etc., Il, 789. 
3 The references in parentheses are mine. 

4 Studies on the Epistles, 325. 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION 139 


‘not to apostatize ’’ drawn from the consideration “ Jesus is 
greater than Moses.” Accordingly, the importance of 
υποστασις in Heb. iii, 14 for the understanding of the same 
term in Heb. xi, 1 is derived from the fact that both verses 
have to do with πίστις by way of exhortation “not to 
apostatize.” 

The “superiority of Jesus over Moses” is the superiority 
of the Master-builder over the workman who builds the 
house, and of the Son over the servant in the house (vv. 2-6). 
The rather long application is then noted: “If the Jews in 
the wilderness were punished for their unbelief by not being 
allowed to enter Canaan, how much more certainly will those 
who let go their faith in Jesus be shut out from the rest of 
the Lord.”! Heb. iii, 14 lies in the context of this practical 
exhortation. It is applied directly to the Jewish Christian 
readers (in verse 12): “Take heed, Brethren, lest perhaps 
there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief to depart 
from the living God.” Then follows the reason in our verse : 
Metoyou yap του Χριστου yeyovapev, cavrrep THY ἀρχὴν τῆς 
vTogtacews μεχρι τέλους βεβαιαν κατασχωμεν. In the 
light of the context it means, “ For we have become sharers 
(partners) of Christ, if indeed we hold fast unto the end the 
sure beginning of the reality (in Christianity in contrast to 
the shadows of Judaism).” As regards the context, we might 
say that the reason given for not apostatizing is that we 
have become “sharers of Christ” (uetoyor του Χριστου) as 
opposed to “sharers of Judaism,” or, as it was expressed in 
verse 1: “sharers of the heavenly calling” (ueroyou επου- 
paviov meroyor) in opposition to the “election of the Jews 
for the covenant of types and shadows,” or, as in verse 6: 
‘‘ But Christ as the Son in His own house, of which we are” 
(ov οἰκος ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς) in contrast to “Moses and all his 
house.” In a word, as Jewish Christians they have become 
“sharers of Christ” in His possessions (eternal realities) in 

1 Godet, Op. cit., 819. 


140 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


contrast to the Jews who by adhering to the Law remain the 
‘sharers with Moses” in the types and shadows of the old 
dispensation. But this sharing or partnership with Christ in 
the heavenly realities of the new order in contrast to the 
sharing with Moses in the types and shadows of the old 
order is dependent on a condition: “if we indeed hold fast 
unto the end the sure beginning of the possession of true 
reality.” 

The only other instance in the New Testament, where 
υποστασις is used, is our famous passage in Heb. xi, 1. We 
shall take up this one in the next chapter. Our investigation 
of the other four instances in the New Testament where the 
term occurs has yielded the same results as did our study of 
viroa tacts in the Greek world, only in a more striking way. 
The results show that St. Paul did not confine himself to 
the terminology of the LXX, but that he rather controls 
and marshals the popular-philosophical terminology of the 
Hellenic world to clothe his own ideas in the language of 
his day. 


CHAPTER II 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 


BEFORE applying the results of this investigation to Heb. 
xi, 1, let us restate them in a summary way: The Mistorical 
Part yielded the original text and the various extant inter- 
pretations of the same. These latter differ according as 
vroctacis was understood to mean either “reality” or 
“confidence.” The value of these historical interpretations, 
studied in such detail, consists not only in showing exactly 
what men have thought of this verse in the past and the 
problems mooted in the same, but also in furnishing an 
historico-literary argument of the highest importance for 
the understanding of υὑποστασις in Heb. xi, 1. For, as we 
have stated before, the language of the Greek Patristic 
writers was the κοινὴ διάλεκτος of Heb. xi, 1. Hence, the 
Patristic interpretation of our verse has a scientific proba- 
bility not enjoyed by the other interpretation that origi- 
nated in non-Greek writers many centuries after the «own 
διάλεκτος had ceased to be a spoken language. 

However, the touchstone that decisively tests the merits 
of the two interpretations is the current Greek usage of 
vroctacts. This touchstone was found in the Exegetical 
Part of the investigation. 

The Evzegetical Part yielded the history of the pivotal 
term ὑποστασις in the Hellenic world, in both profane and 
Biblical literature. From its first appearance in extant lit- 
erature to the Greek Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 υπο- 
στασις meant “reality,” — first, in the terms of a naive and 
primitive language, as the “tangible” in contrast to the 


“transient”? matter, and later, in the popular philosophical 
141 


142 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


language, as “reality” in contrast to “mere appearance.”’ 
This was the current meaning of the term when Heb. xi, 1 
was penned. The only exception to this usage is that of 
the LX X, where the use of the term is so confused as to 
justify the conclusion that they had no knowledge of the 
really original sense of the term. 

There can be no doubt about the meaning of Heb. xi, 1, if 
the sense of ὑποστασις, as furnished by the historico-literary 
investigation of the word, is applicable to our verse. And 
it is applicable, (1) if the general usage of the author 
approves it; (2) if the context confirms it; and (8) if there 
is no other literary source whence the author might have 
derived the term. Let us now examine these several 
hypotheses. 


1. Ὑποστασις IN THE GENERAL USAGE OF THE AUTHOR 


This usage has already been ascertained in the examina- 
tion of υποστᾶσις in the New Testament literature. As it 
was there stated, υποστασις in the New Testament is a 
Pauline term, since it occurs only five times, — twice in the 
II Epistle to the Corinthians and three times in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. Without taking up the difficult problem 
of the authorship of the Epistle, which would bring us too 
far afield, I am assuming only what is generally granted, 
viz., that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Pauline. Hence, 
besides the evidence for the usage of υὑποστασις in Heb. i, 3 
and iii, 14, we may add that of the two passages in II Co- 
rinthians (ix, 4 and xi, 17). In all these instances, it has 
been found that vrocracis was employed in the Greek usage 
of the term, viz., as “reality” or “ something in connection 
with reality.” 

Among these instances of the usage of virocracus, that in 
Heb. iii, 14 is of special importance for its use in Heb. xi, 1, 
because both verses deal with πίστις in the same way. For 
both are embedded in the context of the practical warning, 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 143 


“Do not apostatize”: Heb. iii, 14 in the casual warning, 
drawn from the consideration “ Jesus is better than Moses,” 
and Heb. xi, 1 in the solemn warning of the whole practical 
part, drawn from the arguments of the whole didactic part. 
And in Heb. iii, 14, υποστασις was certainly used to empha- 
size the sense “ reality.” 

From these arguments it may be safely gathered that the 
General Usage of υποστασις by the Pauline author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews favors the current Greek sense of the 
term throughout, but more especially in one passage (Heb. 
iii, 14) where the term is found in practically the same 
context as Heb. xi, 1. 


2. THe Context or HEB. xi, 1 


Stevens has very adequately condensed all the “argu- 
ments” and “appeals” of this Epistle into three words: 
“Do not apostatize.”1 These “arguments” have’ been set 
forth in what has been called the “didactic part” of the 
Epistle (chaps. i-x); and the “appeals” are noted, first 
incidentally after each argument in the “didactic” portion, 
and then more fully in the “practical part” (chaps. xi- 
xiii). 

The “arguments” for not apostatizing are three: (6) 
“Jesus is better than the angels” (chaps. i-ii) ; (6) “Jesus 
is better than Moses or Joshua” (chaps. iii-iv); and (c) 
“ Jesus is better than Aaron and his priesthood” (chaps. v— 
x). But the reason underlying these “arguments” is the 
“ efficactousness’”” of Christ’s superiority in our behalf (chaps. 
viii-x), which, as Godet says, is “the keynote of the 
whole didactic portion.” 2 

On the other hand, the “appeals” grow out of these “ar- 
guments” and may be thus summarized with the same 
author: “ Be all for Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal 


1 The Theology of the New Testament, 487. 
2 Op. cit., 323. 


144 | THE PAULINE PISTIS 


reality of all the good things of which Judaism offers you 
only the shadow.”! The appeals are first stated separately 
after each argument to which it forms a conclusion in the 
Didactic Part, and then summarily in the Practical Part 
(chaps. xi-xiil). Heb. xi, 1, dividing, as it does, the 
“didactic” from the “practical” part of the Epistle, and 
serving as the text for the whole latter part, holds the 
position of a fulcrum, upon which the “arguments” and 
the “appeals” of the whole Epistle balance. Let us now 
consider in more detail these “arguments” and “ appeals ” 
not to apostatize. 

(a) “Jesus is better than the angels” (chaps. i-ii). 
“Therefore,” the author would say, “Do not apostatize.” 
For the fact that Jesus is superior to the angels is “proof of 
the superiority of the Gospel of Christ to the Law of Moses, 
in proportion as Christ, Who delivered it, is greater than 
the angels, who gave the Law.” 32. After having established 
this superiority, the author pauses to draw the lesson: ‘ For 
if the word spoken by angels became steadfast, and every 
transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of 
reward: How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salva- 
tion, which began to be declared by the Lord?” (Heb. ii, 2, 
3). In a word, “God hath not subjected unto angels the 
world to come (οικουμενην τὴν pedXrovocav) whereof we 
speak” (Heb. ii, δ). 

(6) “Jesus is better than Moses or Joshua” (chaps. iii- 
iv). I have already shown why Jewish Christians should not 
apostatize, for the reason that “ Jesus is better than Moses,” 8 
viz., **because we are sharers of Christ, if indeed we hold 
fast unto the end the beginning of the possession of true 
reality (rns υποστασεως) in contrast to shadows” (Heb. iii, 
14). Side by side with this reason not to apostatize is a 


1 Op. cit., 325. 


2 B. ἃ Piconio, An Hzposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, 282. 
3 Cf. p. 186 sq. 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 145 


warning about the incredulous Jews who did not enter the 
‘promised land” because of unbelief (iii, 19). But this 
“rest of God” into which Joshua led the believers is only a 
type of the real “rest of God” into which Jesus leads 
believers. In a word, Jesus the founder of the New Economy 
is better than Moses and Joshua, the founders of the Old, 
precisely in just this that He is the reality which they 
typify. | 

(ec) “Jesus is better than Aaron and his priesthood” 
(chaps. v-x). For Jesus brought the Aaronic priesthood to 
ideal perfection (chap. v, 1-10); His characteristics as 
absolute High-Priest were foreshadowed by Melchisedek 
(chap. vii); Christ’s priestly sanctuary is heaven itself, not 
earth, and His covenant is one of grace, not external works 
(chap. viii); the old order with its man-made tabernacle and 
furnishings, its restricted priestly service, and the repeated 
sacrifices of oxen, heifers, and goats, is contrasted with the 
new, where the Eternal High-Priest Christ “in a tabernacle 
not made with hands,’ “entered once into the holies,” 
“having obtained redemption for all” (chap. ix); and, 
finally, by one sacrifice Christ took away sin, whereas “ the 
law (a shadow (cxva) of the good things to come, not the 
very essence (evcova των πραγματων) of the realities) by the 
self-same sacrifices which are offered continually every year, 
can never make the comers thereunto perfect” (chap. x). The 
priesthood, sanctuary, services, sacrifices of the Old Covenant 
with their inability “to perfect” are only the earthly types 
and shadows of the heavenly realities and life-giving efficacy of 
Christ’s eternal Priesthood in the New Covenant. 

The “appeals” drawn from this argument are scattered 
over the whole section (chaps. v-x). The author complains 
of the lack of spiritual insight to see the difference between 
the two Covenants, and reminds them of the awful truth 
that if any one fall away after receiving the grace of regen- 
eration and spiritual enlightenment, by which they “ pierce 


146 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


the veil,” no further regeneration is possible (chaps. v, 10-- 
vi, 20). Then the superiority of the Christian worship (in 
which the priesthood of Christ works out its life-giving 
effects) over the Temple service, is shown in a final warning 
not to apostatize: “ Beware of forsaking the assembling of 
yourselves together, lest you forsake also your faith itself: 
For there would remain no more sacrifice for the expiation of 
such a sin” (chap. x, 16-20). 

In a word, the author in this Epistle appeals to the Jewish 
converts to Christianity, warning them “not to apostatize,” 
(a) because Jesus Who preached the Gospel is superior to 
the angels who delivered the law; (6) because Jesus, the 
Founder of the New Economy, is better than Moses and 
Joshua, the founders of the Old; (6) and finally, because the 
nature and efficacy of Christ’s priesthood means more to us 
than that of Aaron. But the underlying reason for this 
superiority of the Gospel over the Law, of the New Economy 
over the Old, of Christ’s Priesthood over Aaron’s, is that in 
each case the latter is only a sensuous and earthly type of the 
former—a supersensuous and heavenly reality. We also 
observed that the author punctuates these arguments against 
apostasy with warnings and appeals for Faith, which grow in 
pointedness and boldness, until they reach their full stature 
in the “ practical part” of the Epistle, of which Heb. xi, 1 is 
the keystone. 

This brings us to Heb. xi, 1 in its immediate context. 
The last solemn warning growing out of the arguments of 
the ‘“‘didactic part” is unmistakable: “But my just man 
liveth by Faith; yet if he withdraw (υποστείληται) himself, 
he shall not please my soul” (chap. x, 38); also the “appeal” 
for Faith is clear and emphatic: “But we are not the 
children of withdrawing unto perdition (ype Se ove ἐσμεν 
υποστολῆς εἰς απωλειαν), but of Faith to the saving of the 
soul (αλλα πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν wuyns)” (chap. x, 39). 
The author having drawn this final contrast between “ apos- 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 147 


tasy”” (υποστολη) and “faith” {πιστις). and having stated 
that, whereas “apostasy” leads to destruction, the soul of 
man is saved by “Faith,” “proceeds to explain what that 
Faith is which saves the soul.”! The explanation follows in 
the celebrated verse, Heb. xi, 1, concerning which Delitzsch 
has well said: “ A more complete and accurate definition of 
Faith, and one more generally applicable, could not be 
devised than that one which is here given”?: ἔστιν δε 
πίστις EXTrLCOMEV@Y υὑποστασίς, πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπο- 
μενων: For Faith is the υποστασις of things hoped for, the 
incontestable proof of things unseen. The all-important 
question now arises: Is the current Hellenic meaning of 
υποστασις as “reality” in contrast to “mere appearance” 
applicable here? We answer in an emphatic affirmative. 

For this final warning “not to apostatize” and the “ap- 
peal” for Faith are culminating exhortations drawn from 
the “ arguments ” of the whole Epistle, and are here solemnly 
restated and contrasted ὅ on the threshold of the “ practical 
part” of the Epistle, of which Heb. xi, 1 is the topical 
verse. But the preceding “arguments” against apostasy 
and the “appeals” for Faith are based, as already noted, on 
the notion that Christianity is related to Judaism “as its 
complete fulfilment, the substance answering to the shadow.” 4 
This reason underlying the “arguments” “not to aposta- 
tize,’ and animating the “appeals” for Faith, is now most 

1 Piconio, Op. cit., 396. 

2 Op. cit., Il, 204. There is a division among the interpreters on the ques- 
tion as to whether this is a ‘‘definition’’ or a ‘‘description’’ of mores. 
Some of the most eminent authors, favoring the first, are: Augustine, Van 
Steenkiste, Godet, Feine, Beyschlag, Westcott, J. Weiss ; those favoring the 
second, are: Olshausen, Milligan, MacEvilly, Cowles, Farrar, and John 
Owen. 

8 Schlatter thinks that there is here even a verbal contrast: ‘‘ Weichen 
und Glauben waren im Anschluss an das Wort Habakuks im vorangehenden 
einander entgegengestellt, dem Weichen tritt nun das “ Stehen ’’ gegenuber, 


der vrocrodn die vrocracis.’? Cf. Op. cit., 458. 
4 Westcott, Op. cit., 317. 


148 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


strikingly, with complete fitness, and yet naturally, brought 
into the very definition of πίστις, by means of the term 
υποστασις in its current Hellenic sense of “ reality” in con- 
trast to “mere appearance”: ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ελπιζομενων 
ὑπόστασις, πραγματων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομενων: For Faith is 
the PRESENTATION of the REALITY of things hoped for, the 
incontestable proof of things unseen. With this interpreta- 
tion in mind, Dummelow has skillfully gathered up the main 
thread of the context in these words: “It has been shown 
that the earthly and visible things are but types, copies, and 
shadows of heavenly realities (Heb. viii, 5; ix, 22; x, 1). 
The underlying thought of the preceding chapters is that 
contrary to the ordinary way of thinking, it is the heavenly 
that is the real. But how are heavenly and invisible things 
to be realized with any assurance? It is by the operation 
of Faith. Faith is that by which the invisible becomes real, 
and the future becomes present. ‘Faith gives reality to 
things hoped for, and puts to the test things for the present 
unseen.’ ” 1 

This interpretation of ὑπόστασις in Heb. xi, 1 as “ reality ” 
in contrast to “mere appearance” is confirmed by what fol- 
lows in the context. For the “cloud of witnesses,” arrayed 
by the author to illustrate his definition of Faith (xi, 
2-xii, 3), is eminently fitted to do this. Godet says, “all 
these, each in his own manner, let go the Seen that they 
might grasp the Unseen.”2 Weinel analyzes the πίστις of 
the various heroes: “Glauben heisst: wie Abraham Gott 
gehorchen, ohne dass man weiss wohin er uns fiihrt, und 
warten auf die Stadt, die die Fundamente hat, deren Archi- 
tekt Gott ist, auch wenn man darum ‘in Zelten’ wohnen 
muss, u.s.w.”® In each case, it is the laying hold of the 
unseen and heavenly reality. After an appeal for patient 
endurance (0. xiii), the author finally asks for an absolute 
“ break” from Judaism (c. xili, 13). 

1 Op. cit., 1026. 2 Op. cit., 324. % Biblische Theologie des Neuen Test., 599. 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 149 


This interpretation of Heb. xi, 1 would also be calculated 
to stir up anew Faith in the Jewish readers of this Epistle, 
who were apparently on the verge of abandoning the heavenly 
realities of Christianity for the earthly shadows of Judaism. 
For, if we but bear in mind the tenacity with which the 
early Jewish converts to Christianity clung to the Law that 
had degenerated into mere externalism, to the visible sanc- 
tuary at Jerusalem, and to the fleshly bond that bound them 
to the chosen people, we can appreciate more fully the scope, 
the probable efficacy, and the necessity of such “arguments” 
“not to apostatize,” and of such “appeals” for Faith. For, 
the Law, the Jewish theocracy, and the Aaronic priesthood 
and its sacrifices, were earthly things, present among them, 
and easy to be grasped by bodily eyes; whereas the Gospel, 
the new economy of salvation, and the supersensuous and 
heavenly realities of Christianity were partly present and 
partly future, and could be grasped only by Faith and by 
Hope. Beyschlag has well expressed this thought in these 
words: “ Above this sensuous world of growth and decay 
God has founded a supersensuous and eternal world, in 
which we believe, for which we hope, and after which we 
are to seek. The invisible world is characterized in this 
world of Faith and Hope in the well-known words of Heb. 
αὐ} 

Accordingly, we see that both the general context of 
the whole Epistle and the immediate context of Heb. xi, 1 
demand the interpretation of ὑπόστασις of our verse in 
the current Greek sense of “reality” in contrast to “mere 
appearance.” 


8. THe ΟΝ LITERARY SOURCE FOR THE USAGE OF 
υποστασις IS THE HELLENIC WORLD 


Again it must be pointed out that the real home and birth- 
place of υποστασις is the Hellenic world, and that the voice 
1 New Testament Theology, Il, 296. 


150 | THE PAULINE PISTIS 


of this world of thought is decisive. Those commentators 
like Schlatter, Delitzsch, and the Moderns generally, who 
have gone to the LXX for the meaning of ὑποστασις, forget 
not only the basic fact, that the LX X cannot be a source for 
the sense of Greek words independent of good Greek usage, 
but also that the LXX in its actual usage of this term, as is 
the case with many others,! is altogether unreliable. 

The meaning of the υὑποστασις in the Hellenistic world, as 
“reality” in contrast to “mere appearance,” is not only a 
well-established sense of the term, but it has also been actu- 
ally used for the very contrast employed in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. Stevens has also noted this point: “The 
contrast between the lower world of shadows and semblances 
and the heavenly world of abiding realities, which is so promi- 
nent in this Epistle, reminds one of the distinction be- 
tween the sensible and the intellectual world which Philo 
had derived from Plato.”? And, I might add, what is most 
remarkable in this common usage of ὑποστασις by Philo and 
the author of our Epistle, is the fact that both use the term 
to express the “ perception of the invisible world” which, in 
turn, was commonly expressed by the Greeks through the 
term πιστις.ὃ 

There cannot be the slightest doubt that St. Paul, putting 
aside the confused notions of vzrocracis in the LXX, and 
adhering consistently to the definition of the term in the 
Hellenic World, under the striking identity of the famous 
contrast “reality ”’ — “appearance,” received his viroctacis- 
formula from no other source than this same Greek world of 
thought. 


1 Cf. p: 182 sq.; also cf. Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible, 90. 

2 Op. cit., 488 ff. 

3 ἐἐ Religious faith, even under the Polytheistic form it assumed in Greece, 
implies that what exists and happens in the world depends on certain causes 
concealed from sensuous perception.’’ Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 
I, 62. 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO HEB. XI, 1 151 


CONCLUSION 


We hope that the πιστις-υποστασις problem can now be 
regarded as solved. 

The Pauline ὑποστασις, as a qualification of πίστις in Heb. 
xi, 1, is the PRESENTATION OF “REALITY” in contrast to 
“MERE APPEARANCE.” Scientifically, no other interpreta- 
tion is possible. Such explanations as “ fiducia,” “ expecta- 
tion,” etc., are perversions of the historical evidence. 

In this age of the historico-critical method, these a priori 
interpretations ought to give place to an historically justified 
exegesis. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


BSt = Biblische Studien. 
BW = The Biblical World. 
BZ = Biblische Zeitschrift. 
ExpT = The Expository Times. 
HThSt = Harvard Theological Studies. 
Philg = Philologus. 
TR = Textus Receptus. 
ZkTh = Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie. 


152 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


(The Patristic literature, in so far as it is taken from Migne, P.G., and 
P.L., is not included in this Bibliography. ) 


Alber, Joannes Nep., Interpretatio Sacrae Scripturae per omnes veteris 
et novi testamenti Libros, Vol. 16, Pesthini, 1804. 

Allioli, Joseph Franz, Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testa- 
ments!, New York, 1894. 

Aristotelis, Opera Omnia, Graece et Latine, Ed. Didot, Parisiis, 1878. 

Bach, Ludwig, Der Glaube nach der Anschauung des Alten Testaments, 
Giitersloh, 1900. 

Bardenhewer, O., Patrology, The Lives and Works of the Fathers of 
the Church, translated from the Second Edition by Thomas J. 
Shahan, Freiburg im Breisgau and St. Louis, Mo., 1908. 

Basilii, Opera Omnia Quae Extant, Opera et Studia Monachorum Or- 
dinis Sancti Benedicti e Congregatione Sancti Mauri’, Parisiis, 1839. 

Bellarmini, Roberti, Disputationum, De Controversiis Fidei Christianae 
adversus huius Temporis Haereticos, Neapoli, 1856. 

Bengel, John Albert, Gnomon of the New Testament, A New Transla- 
tion by Charlton, T. Lewis, and Marion R. Vincent, Vol. 2, Phila- 
delphia, 1861. 

Bernardine 4 Piconio, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, trans- 
lated and edited from the Original Latin by A. H. Prichard, London, 
1890. 

Bernheim, Ernst, Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode und der Geschicht- 
philosophie, Leipsig, 1908. 

Beyschlag, Willibald, New Testament Theology, translated by Neil 
Buchanan, Vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1895. 

Bigg, Charles, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. 

Bill, Leonhard, Der Brief an die Hebrier, iibergesetzt und erklart, 
Mainz, 1879. 

Billot, Ludovico, De Virtutibus Infusis, etc., Romae, 1905. 

Bleek, Friedrich, Commentar ρου den Hebrier-Brief, 1828-1840. 

Blunt, John Henry, The Annotated Bible, London, 1882. 

Boll, R. H., Lessons on Hebrews, Nashville, 1910. 

Bonaventurae, Cardinalis, Opera Omnia, Ed. A. C. Peltier, Vols. 4 et 
7, Parisiis, 1856. 

153 


154 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Briggs, Charles Augustus, General Introduction to the Study of the 
Scriptures, New York, 1899. 

Burbridge, A. T., Faith as an Effort of the Soul (Heb. xi, 1), BW 18, 
(1901). 

Burkitt, William, Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the 
New Testament, London, 1716. 

Brenii, Danielis, Harlemo-Batavi, Opera Theologica, Amstelaedami, 1666. 

Calmet, Augustino, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Veteris 
et Novi Testamenti, Tom. 8, Lucae, 1738. 

Calvini, Joannis, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Ed. Guilielmus Baum, 
Eduardus Cunitz, Eduardus Reuss, Brunsvigae, 1890. (Corpus 
Reformatorum, Vol. 71.) 

Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, The 
Ed. Horn, Oxford, 1905. 

Corluy, Josephii, Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum, Tom. 2, Gandavi, 
1884. 

Cornuti, Theologiae Graecae Compendium, Recensuit Carolus Lang, 
Lipsiae, 1881. 

Cowles, Henry, Epistle to the Hebrews with Notes, Critical, Explana- 
tory and Practical, etc., New York, 1878. 

Cremer, Hermann, Biblisch-Theologisches Wérterbuch der Neutesta- 
mentlichen Gricitat®, Gotha, 1902. 

Deissmann, Adolf, The Philology of the Greek Bible, translated from 
the Author’s MS. by Lionel R. M. Strachan, London, 1908. 

Delitzsch, Franz, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated 
from the German by Thomas L. Kingsburg*, Edinburgh, 1876. 

Denifle, H., Luther und Luthertum, Mainz, 1906. 

Dibelius, Martin, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, Gottingen, 1909. 

Diels, Hermanus, Doxographi Graeci, Berolini, 1879. 

Diodori, Siculi, Bibliothecae Historicae Quae Supersunt, Ed. Carolus 
Mullerus, Parisiis, 1878. 

Bibliotheca Historica, Editionem Primam Curavit Imm. Bekker, 
Alteram Ludovicus Dindorf, Recognovit Fredericus Vogel, Lipsiae, 
1888. 

Diogenis, Laertii, De Clarorum Philosophorum Vitis, etc., C. Gabr. Cobet 
Recensuit, Parisiis, 1878. 

Doddridge, P., The Family Expositor, or a Paraphrase and Version of 
the New Testament with Critical Notes, London, 1756. 

Dummelow, J. R., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, by Various 
Authors, Edited by, New York, 1909. 

Ellicott, Charles John, A New Testament Commentary for English 
Readers, London, 1884. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 155 


Estii, Guilielmi, In Omnes D. Pauli Epistolas, Item in Catholicas, Com- 
mentarii?. Ed. Joh. Holzammer, Moguntiae, 1859. 

Farrar, F. W., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, with 
Notes and Introduction, Cambridge, 1896. 

Feine, Paul, Theologie des Neuen Testaments’, Leipzig, 1912. 

Flavii Josephi, Opera, Graece et Latine, Recognovit Guilielmus Dindor- 
fius, Parisiis, 1865. 

Flavius Josephus, The Works of, translated by Wm. Whiston, Hart- 
ford, 1905. 

Ginsburg, David, Biblia Hebraica, Massoretico-Critical Text of the 
Hebrew Bible carefully revised according to the Massorah and the 
early printed editions of the Hebrew Bible”, London, 1906. 

Godet, F., Studies on the Epistles, translated by Annie Harwood 
Holmden, New York, 1889. 

Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Epistle to the Hebrews, New York, 1908. 

Index Patristicus sive Clavis Patrum Apostolicorum Operum’, 
Leipzig, 1907. 

Index Apostolicus sive Clavis Justini Martyris Operum Aliorum- 
que Apologetarum Pristinorum, Leipzig, 1912. 

Hammond, C. E., Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New 
Testament®, Oxford, 1902. 

Harnack, Adolf, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Erster Band, Frei- 
burg, 1886; Zweiter Band, Freiburg, 1887; Dritter Band*, Freiburg 
1897. 

History of Dogma, translated from the Third German edition by 
E. B. Speirs and James Millar, Vol. 4, London, 1898; and by Neil 
Buchanan, Vol. 7, 1900. 

Hastings, James, etc., Dictionary of the Bible, edited by, New York, 
1909. 

Hatch, Edwin, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the 
Christian Church’, Hibbert Lectures, 1888, London and Edinburgh, 

1891. 

Hatsch, W. H. P., The Pauline Idea of Faith in its relation to Jewish 
and Hellenistic Religion, HThSt 2 (1917). 

Haynes, W. A., The Glories of the Inner Sanctuary as Has Been Re- 
vealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cincinnati, 1911. 

Heine, Gerhard, Synonymik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Berlin, 
1898. 

Hippocrates, Opera Omnia, Ed. H. Kuehlewein, Lipsiae, 1894. 

His genuine Works, translated from the Greek by Francis Adams, 
New York, 1886. 
Hirzel, R., Article on Ovow in Philg (1918), 72. 


156 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, New York, 1904. 

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theo- 
logie,? Tubingen, 1911. 

Hovyiov Λεξικον, Ed. Cornelius Schrevetius, Ludg. Batav. et Raterod., 1668. 

Ihmels, Ludwig, Die Bedeutung des Auctorititsglaubens, Leipzig, 1902. 

Ιωαννου Tov Χρυσοστομου Ta Evpicxopeva Tlavra, Nouvelle Traduction 
Francais par L’Abbe J. Bareille, 20, Paris, 1865. | 

Jernegan, Prescot, “ The Faith of Jesus Christ,” BW 8 (1896). 

Junkin, George, A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Phil., 
1873. 

Klussmann, Rodolf, Bibliotheca Scriptorum,Classicorum et Graecorum et 
Latinorum, Die Literatur von 1878 bis 1896 einschliesslich Um- 
fassend, Leipzig, 1909. 

Kuinoel, Christiani Theophili, Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 
Lipsiae, 1831. 

Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon,® 
Oxford, 1901. 

Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, London, 1902. 

Livermore, Abiel Abbot, The Epistle to the Hebrews, etc., Boston, 1881. 

Lomb, Conrad, Commentarius in Divi Pauli Apostoli Epistolam ad He- 
braeos, Ratisbonae, 1843. 

Longking, Joseph, Notes on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the 
Hebrews, New York, 1867. 

Lowrie, Samuel, An Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews?, Phil. 
1898. 

Liinemann, Gottlieb, Kritisch Exeget. Handbuch iiber den Hebrier- 
brief’, Géttingen, 1867. 

Lutheri, Tomus Primus Omnium Operum, Jenae, 1564. 

Lutheri, Martini, Commentarium In Epistolam ὃ. Pauli ad Galatas, 
Curavit Dr. Joan. Conrad. Irmischer, Tom. I, Erlangae, 1843. 

MacComb, Samuel, Faith according to Paul, BW 25 (1905). 

MacEvilly, John, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, and of the 
Catholic Epistles, II, 3, Dublin, 1875. 

MacKenzie, W. Douglas, Faith and Superstition, BW 27 (1906). 

Mazochii, Alexii Symmachii, Spicilegii Biblici, Tom. 3, Neapoli, 1778. 

Menochii, Joannis Stephani, Commentarii Totius Sacrae Scripturae, 
Tom. 2, Venetiis, 1722. 

Milligan, R., The New Testament Commentary, Vol. 9, Epistle to the 
Hebrews, Cincinnati, 1876. 

Moulton, James Hope, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prole- 
gomena®, Edinburgh, 1908. 

From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, London, 1916. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 157 


Murray, Gilbert, A History of Ancient Greek Literature, New York and 
London, 1916. 

Natalis, Alexander, Commentarius in Omnes Epistolas, etc., Venetiis, 
1768. 

Newman, John Henry, Cardinal, An Essay on the Development of 

: Christian Doctrine, New York, 1909. 

Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification’, London, 1900. 

Olshausen, Hermann, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament, etc., 
translated from the German for Foreign Theological Library, re- 
vised after the Latest German Edition by A. C. Kendrick, New 
York, 1863. 

Owen, John, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Pre- 
liminary Exercitations, London, 1840. 

Oxyrhynchus Papyri, The, edited with Translations and Notes by Ber- 
nard P. Grenfell and Arthur 5. Hunt, London, 1898. 

Pape, W., Handworterbuch der Griechischen Sprache*, Braunschweig, 
1906. 

Petavii, Dionysii Aurelianensis, Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus, Tom. 
2, Venetiis, 1757. 

Philonis Judaei, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia, etc., Thomas 
Mangey, London, 1742. 

Pierce, James, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to 
the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews: after the manner of 
Mr. Locke, London, 1727. 

Piscatoris, Joan., Commentarii in Omnes Libros Novi Testamenti?, 
Herbornae Nassoviorum, 1638. 

Plumber, William S., Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to 
the Hebrews, New York, 1872. 

Plutarchi, Scripta Moralia, Ed. Fredericus Diibner, Graece et Latine, 
Parisiis, 1877. 

Poli, Mathaei, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque S. Scripturae Inter- 
pretum, Londini, 1669. 

Polybii, Historiarum Reliquiae, Graece et Latine, Ed. Didot, Parisiis 
1880. 

Polybius, General History in Five Books, The, translated from the 
Greek by Mr. Hampton, London, 1811. 

Prat, F., La Théologie de Saint Paul (Bibliothéque de Théologie Histo- 
rique)*, Paris, 1909. 

Ramsay, Sir W. R., The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, 
London. 

Raphelii, Georgii, Annotationes Philologicae in Novum Testamentum ex 
Xenophonte, Polybio, Arriano, et Herodoto Collectae, Lugduni, 1750. 


158 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Ripley, Henry J., The Epistle to the Hebrews with Explanatory Notes, 
Boston, 1868. 

Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the 
Light of Historical Research, New York, 1914. 

Roeth, Eduardus Maximilianus, Epistola Vulgo “Ad Hebraeos” In- 
scripta, Frankfurti ad Moenum, 1836. 

Rosenmiiller, Jo. Georgii, Scolia in Novum Testamentum, Norimbergae, 
1808. 

Ross, J., ὕποστασις, ExpT 4, p. 177. 

Sampson, Francis 8., A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, edited from the Manuscript Notes of the Author by 
Robert L. Dabney, New York, 1860. 

Schaff, Philip, A Popular Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 4, 

᾿ς The Epistle to the Hebrews, etc., Edinburgh, 1883. 
A Religious Encyclopaedia’, etc., based on the Real-Encyklopadie 
of Herzog etc., New York, 1894. 

Schlatter, D. A., Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, Leiden, 1885. 

Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Erster Teil: Das Wort 
Jesu, Stuttgart, 1909. 

Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Zweiter Teil: Die Lehre 
der Apostel, Stuttgart, 1910. 

Schumacher, Heinrich, Christus in seiner Praexistenz und Kenose, nach 
Phil. 2, 5-8, Rom, 1914. 

Seiss, Joseph Augustus, Popular Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Baltimore, 1846. 

Seyffert, Oskar, A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, from the German 
of Oskar Seyffert, revised and edited with Additions by Henry 
Nettleship, J. E. Sandys, London, 1895. 

Shepardson, Daniel, Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chicago, 
1901. 

Smith, Henry, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of 
Samuel, New York, 1904. 

Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods 
(from B.c. 146 to a.p. 1100), New York, 1887. 

Steenkiste, J. A., Van, Commentarius in Omnes S. Pauli Epistolas', 
Brugis, 1886. 

Stentrup, Zum Begriff der Hypostase, ZkTh (1887). 

Stephanus, Henricus, Novum Testamentum, Graece et Latine, Annota- 
tiones in Quibus Ratio Interpretationis Reddatur, 1550. 

Stevens, George Barker, The Theology of the New Testament, New 
York, 1900. 

The Great Shall Live by Faith, BW 28 (1904). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 


Strabonis, Geographica, Graece cum Versione Reficta, Ed. C. Muller et 
F. Dubner, Parisiis, 1853. 

Geographica, Recognovit Augustus Meineke, Lipsiae, 1895. 

Stuart, Moses, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews?, New York, 
1833. 

Suarez, Francisci, Opera Omnia, Vol. 12, Ed. Carolus Berton, Parisiis, 
1858. 

Tertulliani, Quae Supersunt Omnia, Ed. Franciscus Oehler, Lipsiae, 
1853. 

Theophrasti Eresii, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Ed. Fredericus Wim- 
mer, Parisiis, 1864. 

St. Thomas, Omnia Opera, Vol. 21, Commentaria in Epist. 5. Pauli, 
Parisiis, 1876. 

Tirini, Jacobi, Commentaria in S. Scripturarum, Antverpiae, 1632. 

Tischendorf, Constantinus, Novum Testamentum, etc., Lipsiae®, 1894. 

Tittmann, John Aug. Henry, Remarks on the Synonyms of the New 
Testament, translated by Rev. Edward Craig, Vol. 1, Edinburgh, 
1833. 

Trollope, William, Analecta Theologica, A Critical Philological and 
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, London, 1842. 

Turner, William, A History of Philosophy, Boston, 1903. 

Vaughan, C. J., Προς EBpasovs, The Epistle to the Hebrews with Notes, 
London and New York, 1891. 

Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes, etc., Ed. Constan- 
tinus de Tischendorf®, Lipsiae, 1880. 

Waltonus, Brianus, S. S. Biblia Polyglotta, London, 1657. 

Weaver, S. Townsend, The Greatest Book Ever Written, Washington, 
1915. 

Weigl, Eduard, Die Heilslehre des hl. Cyrill von Alexandrien, Mainz, 
1905. 

Weinel, H., Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments*, Tubingen, 
1918. 

Weiss, Bernhard, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, translated 
from the Third Revised Edition by Rev. Daird Eaton, Edinburgh, 
1892. 

Der Brief an die Hebrier, ein Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar 
tiber das Neue Testament begriindet von Heinr. August Wilh. 
Meyer®, Géttingen, 1897. 

Weiss, Johannes, Das Urchristentum, I Teil, Gottingen, 1914. 

Westcott, Brooke Foss, The Epistle to the Hebrews; the Greek Text 
with Notes and Essays’, London, 1892. 

Whibley, Leonard, A Companion to Greek Studies*, Cambridge, 1916. 


160 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


Wilson, William, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, translated by, 
Edinburgh, 1871. 
Zeller, E. A., Die Philosophie der Griechen in Ihrer Geschichtlichen 
Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1880. 
A History of Greek Philosophy, translated from the German by 
5. F. Alleyne, London, 1881. 
Zorell, Franciscus, Novi Testamenti Lexicon Graecum (Cursus Scrip- 
turae Sacrae), Parisiis, 1911. 


APPENDIX 
THESES 


I 


Heb. xi, 1 is the standard definition of πίστις in the 
Patristic literature. 


II 


The Pauline vrocraois, as a qualification of πίστις in Heb. 
xi, 1, is the “ presentation of reality” in contrast to ‘mere 
appearance.” From an historico-literary point of view no 
other interpretation is possible. 


iit 


Such interpretations of υποστασις in Heb. xi, 1, as “ fidu- 
cia,” “expectation” etc., are perversions of the historical 
evidence. 


IV 


The literary source for the Pauline usage of virocracis in 
Heb. xi, 1 is not the confused sense of the word in the LXX, 
but rather the current Greek understanding of the term, 
which had been prepared by a natural historical develop- 
ment in the Hellenic world. 


Vv 


An historico-literary investigation of the term ὑποστασις 
discloses the fact that it was first employed in the primitive 
and naive usage, as the “tangible and stable matter” in 
contrast to the ‘transient,’ and later in the vocabulary of 

161 


162 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


popular philosophy, as “reality” in contrast to “mere ap- 
pearance.” 


VI 


The sense of ὑπόστασις, as “ reality” in contrast to “‘ mere 
appearance,” was current when the famous definition of the 
Pauline πίστις was penned. 


Vil 


The current Greek usage of the Pauline νποστασις has not 
been sufficiently recognized by modern scholars in their in- 
terpretation of the five New Testament passages in which 
the term occurs. 


Vill 


Both the general usage of the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews and the context demand that ὑποστασις in Heb. xi, 
1 be understood in the sense of “reality” in contrast to 
“mere appearance.” 


IX 


The Greek Patristic exegesis of Heb. xi, 1 is in complete 
agreement with the Hellenistic notion of υποστασις. 


xX 


It is a noteworthy fact that an historico-literary inves- 
tigation of the terms, ovova (by Hirzel), αρπαγμος and 
μορφη θεου (by Schumacher), and ὑποστασις has yielded the 
same general results: the terms were each found, first, in 
a naive and primitive usage, and were adopted later, in a 
developed sense, into the popular philosophical vocabulary. 


XI 


The Peshitto-rendering of Heb. xi, 1 not only shows a 
perfect understanding of ὑπόστασις in this context, as the 


APPENDIX 163 


“presentation of reality,” but it also constitutes an official 
confirmation of this interpretation by the early Syrian 
Church. 

XIT 


The variant reading of Codex Alexandrinus (A) in the 
text of Heb. xi, 1 very probably is a transcriptional error. 


XIII 


Ὑποστασις in Polybius, Histor. Relig. VI, 55, 2, so often 
cited as the standard witness to the usage of that term in 
Heb. xi, 1 in the sense of “fiducia,” positively cannot be so 
translated. 


XIV 


The meaning of ὑποστασις in the papyri, “ property ” and 
the “ title-deed to property,” confirms the results found in 
the Hellenic literature. 

XV 


An historico-literary investigation of the term μορφη θεου 
shows that it was a technical term in Greek philosophy, and 
the current formula for the metaphysical essence of God in 
the time of St. Paul. 

XVI 

The pre-existence of Christ in the Divine essence is clearly 
established in Phil. ii, 6. 

XVII 


The literary. problem in the Synoptic Question cannot be 
solved by the so-called theory of Oral Tradition. 
XVI 


The oriental conception of the mystery of numbers is the 
decisive key for the explanation of the Genealogies. 


164 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


XIX 


There is sufficient evidence to show that the Hebrew 
poetry of the Psalms is metrical, the essential element of the 
meter being the verse determined by the number of accented 
syllables. 


XX 


The inverted Nfin in the Massoretic text is used to mark 
critically doubtful passages. 


XXI 


The Nequdoth or Extraordinary Points of the Penta- 
teuch were devised by their author or authors to condemn, 
as spurious, the words or letters over which they were placed. 


XXIT 


The similarities in thought and expression between Wis- 
dom (c. xiii) and St. Paul’s speech at the Areopagus are 
such as to show some literary influence. 


XXII 


The coincidences in the Magnificat (Luke i, 46-55) and 
in the Canticle of Anna (I Sam. ii, 1-10) show a literary 
dependence. 


XXIV 


The differences in the canon of the Old Testament, as 
formulated by the Council of Trent and that defended by 
Origen and St. Jerome, may be accounted for by the different 
tests of canonicity used. 


XXV 


The Pauline πίστις, characterized as ὑποστασις in Heb. 
xi, 1, is fundamentally similar in meaning to MVS, in that 
both terms mean “the tangible” in contrast to “the 
apparent.” 


APPENDIX 165 


XXVI 


I. Non in unanimitate explicationum, sed potius in con- 
tinua attestationum catena, consistit traditio catholica: ac 
proinde a veritate aberrant ii qui dogmata catholica ab ex- 
plicationibus theologicis eorumdum non sedulo discreverint. 


XXVIII 


II. Reiicienda est sententia iuxta quam “dogmata quae 
Ecclesia perhibit tanquam revelata, non sunt veritates a caelo 
delapsae, sed sunt interpretatio quaedam factorum religioso- 
rum, quam humana mens laborioso conatu sibi comparavit.” 
Ex decreto Lamentabili, No. 22. 


XXVIII 


III. Consideratis dogmatum catholicorum origine, natura 
atque profectu, ab iis omnino recedimus qui haec, dogmata 
exhibere conantur ac si specimina praeberent quibus applicari 
possent leges generales evolutionis biologicae. 


XXIX 


IV. Doctrina catholica de morte piaculari Christi summe 
moralis atque spiritualis, simul ac realis et objectiva est 
dicenda. 


XXX 


V. Theologice, historice, et critice inspecta, falsa ostendi- 
tur distinctio illa nuperrime adinventa inter Christum quem 
exhibet historia, et Christum qui est obiectum fidei. 


XXXI 


As a term of distinction in the statement of the Trinita- 
rian doctrine, ὑποστασις very probably came into use as a 
protest against Sabellius and other heretics, who, though 
admitting τρεῖς προσωπα in the Godhead, yet maintained 
that the tpes mpoowra were ανυποστατα. 


166 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


XXXII 


Even in the process by which υὑποστασὶς became the tech- 
nical term for person, the previous meaning of the word 


(“reality ”” in contrast to “mere appearance”) controls the 
development. 


XXXII 


The history of vzrocracis not only throws a new light on 
the terminological confusion in the Trinitarian and Christo- 
logical controversies, but it also dovetails into the results 
reached by Harnack, namely, that Tertullian and not the 
Greeks invented the technical terminology for the Trinita- 
rian doctrine. 


XXXIV 


Πίστις in terms of ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις in Heb. xi, 1 
shows in a striking manner how creed must influence action. 
For Faith gives “things hoped for” the force of ‘ present 
realities” which must be reckoned with, just as the realities 
presented by the senses demand recognition. 


XXXV 


The contention of Harnack and Hatch that the eventual 
identification of πίστις with “creed” shows a development 
in the meaning of the term from simple trust to intellectual 


assent is unfounded. For there was always an intellectual 
element in the word. 


XXXVI 


The credibility of the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the 
Gospels, resting on the testimony of the Apostles themselves, 
cannot be impugned. 


XXXVILI 


The limitations disclosed by a scientific study of the 
remedial power of psychotherapy and hypnotism clearly 


APPENDIX 167 


show that the miracles of Jesus cannot be explained away, 
as instances of natural cures by suggestion. 


XXXVIIT 


The claim of Jesus to be the Son of God is powerfully 
favored by the surpassing beauty and excellence of His 


moral character. 


XXXIX 


The transcendental excellence of Christ’s moral teaching 
creates a strong presumption in favor of His claim to be the 


Son of God. 


XL 


Harnack’s contention that Jesus never thought Himself 
to be ‘the Son of God in the literal sense of truly Divine 
Sonship is shown to be false by a critico-historical analysis 
of Christ’s consciousness as expressed in Matt. xi, 27 (Luke 


x, 22). 


XLI 


The employer’s right to interest on his capital is morally 
inferior to the laborer’s right to a living wage. 


XLIT 
Under existing conditions, interest-taking does not violate 
justice. 


XLII 


Natural justice demands that a laborer’s remuneration 
should be such as to maintain himself and his family in 
reasonable and frugal comfort. 


XLIV 


The inherent right of every human being to subsist from 
the earth’s bounty implies the right of access thereto on 


reasonable grounds. 


168 THE PAULINE PISTIS 


XLV 


In our present industrial civilization private landowner- 
ship is indirectly necessary for the welfare of the individual. 


XLVI 


Etsi certum sit Christum immediate omnia sacramenta 
instituisse, probabile nihilominus videtur Illum quorumdam 
sacramentorum materiam et formam in genere tantummodo 
determinasse. 


XLVII 


Sacramenta Novae Legis in non ponentibus obicem 
gratiam producunt ex opere operato. 


XLVIII 


Validus est Baptismus sive per immersionem, sive per in- 
fusionem, sive per aspersionem collatus. 


XLIX 


Auctoritate Sacrae Scripturae et perenni traditione constat 
solum gravi morbo laborantes et in periculo mortis versantes 
esse capaces sacramenti Extremae Unctionis. 


L 


‘‘ Unctiones verbis, ordine et modo in libris ritualibus 
praescripto, accurate peragantur; in casu autem necessitatis 
sufficit unica unctio in uno sensu seu rectius in fronte cum 
praescripta forma breviori, salva obligatione singulas uncti- 
ones supplendi, cessante periculo.” — Can. 947, 1. 


LI 
Can. 1017, 1. 


111 
Can. 1070, 1. 


APPENDIX 169 


LUI 
Can. 1070, 2. 


LIV 
Can. 1095. 


LV 
Can. 1098, 1. 


LVI 


The Reformation in Germany was as much a political 
movement as a religious upheaval, and this fact must be 
taken into account in explaining its rapid growth. 


LVII 


Instead of remedying existing religious evils, the doctrine 
and activities of Luther augmented them and made the suc- 
cess of the real reform more difficult of achievement. 


LVI 


The early Eucharistic liturgies were not derived from nor 
influenced by the rites of Mithra. 


LIX 


The Greek Patristic exegesis has an historico-literary and, 
hence, a scientific value, not sufficiently recognized by mod- 
ern scholarship. 


. 


LX 


Origen very probably was the first Greek writer to use 
υποστασις as a term of distinction in the Trinitarian and 
Christological controversies. 


BIOGRAPHICAL 


Michael A. Mathis was born Oct. 6, 1885, in South Bend, 
Indiana. He pursued his primary studies at St. Joseph’s 
Parochial School, South Bend, Indiana, and at St. Joseph’s 
Orphanage, La Fayette, Indiana. He entered the Prepara- 
tory Department of the University of Notre Dame in 1901, 
and the Collegiate Department in 1906, receiving the Litt.B. 
from that Institution in 1910. During his theological 
studies at Holy Cross College (1910-1914) he registered at 
the Catholic University of America, where he received the 
S.T.B. in 1914 and the §.T.L. in 1917. Since 1915 he has 
been pursuing the courses of the Department of Sacred 
Scripture and Oriental Languages at the same University. 
He is specializing in Biblical Science, with Dogma as a 
_ minor course. 


170 


7 iP ae = 


ἊΨ, 


pagiieasstepesar stent eres 
eiEee seiaesseshseses sense eosiote es 


pean κε have re pemwrhee onee vere wy rt 
ἘΣΤΕ ΣΤ ΣΙ te esestssregeres sete” 


τος ΣΤ ἘΓΟΤΊ ΤΟ sp tase St eetee 


ΣΤ ΤΙ ΡΣ ἐν ~~ 
: τ - - thy - ξντ ἐνὸς ἜΣΕΣΙ 


besregrtssseestes 


